approved does not mean that they have decided to take the funds....

u really need comprhension 101

u can ramble on and nickpick the articles but the proof will be what companies actually do...3m has acted.

and more consequences...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07brooks.html

"Employee dumping. This is the most serious threat. Companies and unions across America are running the numbers and discovering they would be better off if, after 2014, they induced poorer and sicker employees to move to public insurance exchanges, where subsidies are much higher."

now what was that about if u like your current health insurance u can keep it...

"McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859204575526953379583836.html

From 3M

"The St. Paul, Minn., manufacturing conglomerate notified employees on Friday that it would change retiree benefits both for those who are too young to qualify for Medicare and for those who qualify for the Medicare program. Both groups will get an unspecified health reimbursement instead of having access to a company-sponsored health plan."

Consequences of Obamacare are just beginning...a lot of info from the business community is out there as to how employer insurance will change...it's in the pipeline and you are going to pay more
unless Obamacare is repealed. The real purpose of Obamacare is to be the vehicle that eliminates employer based coverage.

roflmao...it wouldn't make one bit of difference if the rich paid more taxes...congress would spend the increase plus a whole lot more...

balanced budget amendment is the ONLY way to go...

taxes r high enough people...it's is and always will be the spending that is out of control...

In 2006 Obama said and did this

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/gibbs-senator-obama-only-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-in-2006-because-he-knew-it-would-pass-an.html

RIGHT...

And what a joke that Gibbs has been / he's probably retiring cause he can't stand lying anymore for Obama. Voting against something cause u knew it would pass. Don't u just love Obama's principles.

Now Obama has made a Wall Street banker his top advisor / a J P Morgan executive.

Obama...still flipping/flopping like the FEATHER that he has been in the wind

Wall Street Bailout Returns 8.2% Profit Beating Treasury Bonds

October 20, 2010, 12:01 am EDT

The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than they could have made buying 30-year Treasury bonds -- enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money- market funds and certificates of deposit. Investing in the stock market or gold would have paid off better.

When the government first announced its intention to plow funds into the nation’s banks in October 2008 to resuscitate the financial system, many expected it to lose hundreds of billions of dollars. Two years later TARP’s bank and insurance investments have made money, and about two-thirds of the funds have been paid back. Yet Democrats are struggling to turn those gains into political capital, and the indirect costs of propping up banks could have longer-term consequences for the economy.

“From the perspective of the taxpayers getting their money back, TARP has been a great success,” said Todd Petzel, chief investment officer at New York-based Offit Capital Advisors LLC, which has more than $5 billion of assets under management. “But there are other costs as the government made it possible for the banks to pay back TARP. Those costs can turn out to be larger, and their legacy could last longer.”

Low Interest Rates

Banks benefited from dozens of other programs instituted by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, from the purchase of mortgage-backed securities to the bailout of home- lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The suppression of interest rates at close to zero for most of the last two years has also boosted banks’ income, enabling them to borrow money at almost no cost and lend at higher rates.

Those low rates drove down returns on instruments used by American savers. U.S. Treasury 30-year bonds yielded an average of 4.1 percent from Oct. 20, 2008, through yesterday, according to Bloomberg data.

Average rates for high-yield savings accounts, which generally have at least $10,000 in deposits and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., have ranged from 0.36 percent to 0.92 percent over the past two years, based on data from research firm Market Rates Insight in San Anselmo, California. A two-year CD purchased in October 2008 returned 2.8 percent annually, according to Bankrate.com, the North Palm Beach, Florida-based website that tracks bank products.

S&P 500, Gold

Taxable money-market funds, sold by brokerage firms and not FDIC-insured, offered cumulative returns of 0.5 percent for the two years beginning September 2008, based on data from iMoneyNet, a research firm in Westborough, Massachusetts.

Better performers include the stock market, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index gaining 24 percent in the two years since Oct. 20, 2008. SPDR Gold Trust, a gold exchange-traded fund, offered a total return of 66 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

The $25 billion TARP return could fund the SEC for more than 20 years, based on the agency’s proposed 2011 fiscal year budget. It could pay for all farm subsidies in the U.S. for more than two years. Bloomberg compiled the TARP data from reports by the Treasury, FDIC and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

$11 Billion Gain

“I am surprised at the numbers because the consensus seemed to be we threw good money after bad and wouldn’t get repaid,” said Jane King, president of Fairfield Financial Advisors Ltd., a Wellesley, Massachusetts-based fee-only firm whose clients have $5 million to $10 million in net worth.

The Treasury said in an Oct. 5 report that it expects to lose about $17 billion on the separate $80 billion TARP payout to Detroit automakers General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC. The bank and insurance portion of the bailout, which includes $47.5 billion to New York-based American International Group Inc., will probably earn $11 billion in the end, taking expected losses into account, according to Treasury estimates.

One of the biggest investments returned one of the best returns. While New York-based Citigroup Inc. still hasn’t paid back $12 billion of the $45 billion it received, Treasury has already made $8.2 billion, or an 18 percent return, mostly as a result of selling its stake in the lender at a higher price, according to data analyzed by Bloomberg.

After collecting repayments, dividends and proceeds from warrant sales, the government earned a 14 percent return on the $10 billion it gave Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a 13 percent return on the $10 billion that went to Morgan Stanley. Both firms are based in New York.

Career-Killer

Even with the turnaround on bank and insurance investments, TARP remains a political career-killer. Some candidates lost primaries this year in part because they voted for the program, which was proposed by President George W. Bush. The Republican president urged lawmakers to approve it or risk a global financial calamity. Candidates from both parties who are running for election in November have been attacked for backing TARP.

That’s because of voters’ dissatisfaction with banks. A July poll by Angus-Reid Public Opinion found that 90 percent of Americans blame financial institutions for the crisis. The public also feels the pain of indirect subsidies to the banks, Offit’s Petzel said.

‘Wealth Transfer’

One of those subsidies is the $350 billion that savers forgo each year because the Fed keeps interest rates near zero, according to Petzel’s calculations. While banks can borrow at close to zero from the Fed, they lend to consumers and corporations at almost 5 percent, or to the Treasury at 2.5 percent, and they get to keep the difference.

“The huge wealth transfer from fixed-income pensioners to the banks has helped the banks repay TARP,” Petzel said.

The government and the Fed took on more risk than just TARP during the crisis, which isn’t reflected in the program’s cost, said Nomi Prins, a former Goldman Sachs managing director and author of the 2009 book, “It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street.”

According to Prins’s tally, the money plowed into the financial system to prop it up peaked at $19.4 trillion. Banks have benefited from that cash, which helped keep prices of mortgage securities, house prices and other assets overvalued, Prins said in an interview. Even though some of the support has been withdrawn, part of it will likely be lost, such as the hundreds of billions of dollars put into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, she said.

“These are all indirect subsidies the banks got,” Prins said. “So the TARP gains touted by the Treasury are only true if you ignore all the other costs.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Yalman Onaran in Washington at yonaran@bloomberg.net; Alexis Leondis in New York aleondis@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net; Rick Levinson at rlevinson2@bloomberg.net.

©2010 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-Street-Bailout-Returns-bloomberg-2879796906.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

good accurate analysis...most people ignore the FACTS about bank repayments...it would have been a worlwide ECONOMIC DISASTER to let them all go down a la Lehman Brothers...people who blame politicians for voting for the bailout are misguided in the FACTS.

As far as the indirect consequences, the author fails to mention that thousands and thousands of homeowners refinanced at lower interest rates saving tens of thousands of dollars on their mortgages...unfortunately,. many took the "market appreciated equity" out of their house and spent it foolishly.

dang...didn't know they had stealth condom technology...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201923900;_ylt=AvGV2PaTrv2UZIpxUBFypbVv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2YXRxaTlyBGFzc2V0Ay9zL3RpbWUvMDg1OTkyMDE5MjM5MDAEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM5BHBvcwM5BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaGF2ZWNlbGxwaG9u

Have Cell Phones Become Personal Tracking Devices?

ADAM COHEN – Wed Sep 15, 4:55 pm

Smart phones do many things these days: surf the Internet, send e-mail, take photos and video (and - oh, yes - send and receive calls). But one thing they can do that phone companies don't advertise is spy on you. As long as you don't leave home without your phone, that handy gadget keeps a record of everywhere you go - a record the government can then get from your telephone company.

The law is unclear about how easy it should be for the government to get its hands on this locational data - which can reveal whether you've been going to church, attending a Tea Party rally, spending the night at a date's house or visiting a cancer-treatment center. A federal appeals court ruled last week that in some cases the government may need a search warrant. And while that's a step forward, it's not good enough. The rule should be that the government always needs a warrant to access your cell-phone records and obtain data about where you have been.

When you carry a cell phone, it is constantly sending signals about where you are. It "pings" nearby cell-phone towers about every seven seconds so it can be ready to make and receive calls. When it does, the phone is also telling the company that owns the towers where you are at that moment - data the company then stores away indefinitely. There is also a second kind of locational data that phone companies have, thanks to a GPS chip that is embedded in most smart phones now. This is even more accurate - unlike the towers, which can only pinpoint a general area where you may be, GPS can often reveal exactly where you are at any given moment within a matter of meters.

There are some good reasons for this, which is why the government is actually forcing the phone companies to do a better job of knowing where you are. In the name of improving emergency services, the Federal Communications Commission will require phone companies to meet benchmarks in 2012 for how closely they can pinpoint a caller's location. "About 90% of Americans are walking around with a portable tracking device all the time, and they have no idea," says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington, D.C., office.

Not surprisingly, law enforcement has found this sort of data extremely handy. Prosecutors are increasingly using cell-phone records to show that a suspect was near the scene of a crime - or not where he claimed to be.

The Federal Government's position is that it should be able to get most of this data if it decides it is relevant to an investigation, with no need for a search warrant. If the government needs a warrant, it would have to show a judge evidence that there was probable cause to believe that the cell-phone user committed a crime - an important level of protection. Without this requirement, the government can get locational data pretty much anytime it wants.

It is not hard to imagine that the government could also one day use cell-phone data to stifle dissent. Cell-phone records could tell them who attended an antigovernment rally. It could also tell them who is going into the opposition party's headquarters or into the home of someone they have questions about. Cell-phone data may be the most efficient way ever invented for a government to spy on its people - since people are planting the devices on themselves and even paying the monthly bills. The KGB never had anything like it.

And, indeed, the U.S. government already appears to be sweeping up a lot of data from completely innocent people. The ACLU recently told Congress of a case in which, while looking for data on a suspect, the FBI apparently used a dragnet approach and took data on another 180 people. The FBI has said that if it does happen to gather data on innocent people in the course of conducting an investigation, it keeps that information for as long as 20 years.

Last week, the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pushed back. A federal magistrate judge, in a good and strong decision, had ruled that the government must always get a warrant if it wants cell-phone data. The appeals court scaled that back a bit, ruling that magistrate judges have the power to require the government to get a warrant, depending on the facts of the particular case.

The fight over cell-phone tracking is similar to one now going on in the courts over GPS devices - specifically, whether the government needs a warrant to place a GPS device on someone's car. (The courts are sharply divided on the question.) Cell-phone tracking is of far bigger consequence, however, because there is a limit to how many GPS devices police are going to put on cars. Nine out of 10 of us have cell phones that will do the tracking for the government.

The House of Representatives has been holding hearings on this issue and related ones, and a Senate hearing next week is likely to consider it further. It is time for Congress to act. It should amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to make clear that information from our cell phones about where we are and where we have been is deeply private - and that without a search warrant, the government cannot have it.

Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board. His legal column appears every Wednesday on TIME.com.

"Wrap your mind around this. When it comes to health insurance your President demands that you prove you have health insurance and will impose financial penalties if you do not. Yet, when it comes to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws Mr. Barack Hussein Obama decides to sue the state and citizens of Arizona for the temerity to try to enforce Federal immigration law."

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/

President Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don’t have to prove they are citizens”. Author Unknown

America grows stupider every day....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drug_war_stray_bullets

EL PASO, Texas – The first bullets struck El Paso's city hall at the end of a work day. The next ones hit a university building and closed a major highway. Shootouts in the drug war along the U.S.-Mexico border are sending bullets whizzing across the Rio Grande into one of the nation's safest cities, where authorities worry it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed.

At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, one of the world's most dangerous places. And all American police can do is shrug because they cannot legally intervene in a war in another country. The best they can do is warn people to stay inside.

"There's really not a lot you can do right now," El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles said. "Those gun battles are breaking out everywhere, and some are breaking out right along the border."

Police say the rounds were not intentionally fired into the U.S. But wildly aimed gunfire has become common in Juarez, a sprawling city of shanty neighborhoods that once boomed with manufacturing plants. It's ground zero in Mexico's relentless drug war.

More than 6,000 people have been killed there since 2008, when the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels started battling each other and Mexican authorities for control of the city and smuggling routes into the U.S. Nationwide, more than 28,000 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon launched his offensive against the cartels shortly after taking office in December 2006.

Until now, communities on the U.S. side of the border have been largely shielded from the violence raging just across the river. But the recent incidents are the first time that live ammunition has landed in American territory.

On Saturday, as gunmen and Mexican authorities exchanged gunfire in Juarez, police in El Paso shut down several miles of border highway. Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said his agency asked for the closure — a first since the drug war erupted — "in the interest of public safety."

No one was injured on the U.S. side, but one bullet came across the Rio Grande, crashed through a window and lodged in an office door frame at the University of Texas at El Paso. Police are also investigating reports that another errant round shattered a window in a passing car. Witnesses at a nearby charity said at least one bullet hit their building, too.

El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry said authorities have only confirmed the single bullet found at the university, but it is possible that several other shots flew across the border.

"As a local municipality, we are doing everything we can," Petry said. "Looking where we're at, the community we live in, that's all we've got. It's the reality of life here in El Paso for right now."

Officers say the types of bullets used in the drug war can travel more than a mile before falling to the ground.

In Saturday's shooting, the bullet that hit the campus building may have flown just under a mile before lodging in a door jam. Back in June, at least seven shots fired from Juarez flew more than half a mile before hitting City Hall.

In some places, El Paso is separated from Juarez by little more than a few yards of riverbed.

Andrew Kunert was napping Saturday when police started banging on his door at an apartment building just feet from the border. He said officers with high-powered rifles slung across their chests warned him to stay inside and away from windows until the shooting stopped.

The rat-a-tat-tat of gunfire to the south is nothing new, but bullets coming north is a worrisome new development, Kunert said.

"About once a week, you can hear gunfire," he said. He worries about the children who live at the Old Fort Bliss apartment building and routinely play outside when gunmen are trading shots across the river.

At the Rescue Mission of El Paso, kitchen manager Bill Cox said several bullets hit a pair of old silos on the charity's property, which is down a hillside from the university campus. Volunteers and homeless people coming to the mission for food or other help could easily be in the line of fire, he said.

"Someone can be walking down the street out here and be hit," Cox said.

In a letter to President Barack Obama after the City Hall shooting, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said it was "good fortune" that no one was injured and insisted the shooting was evidence of the need for more border security.

"Luck and good fortune are not effective border enforcement policies," Abbott wrote. "The shocking reality of cross-border gunfire proves the cold reality: American lives are at risk."

And Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement demanding more security.

"It's time for Washington to stop the rhetoric and immediately deploy a significant force of personnel and resources to the border to protect our homeland," Perry said.

Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said the governor believes that more security — in the form of federal agents and even troops — could all but shut down the border to smuggling and help put Mexico's warring cartels out of business.

The only way cartels "are being successful is by being able to operate on both sides of the border," Cesinger said. "If you shut down that border, they are out of business. They are not able to continue."

Obama has ordered about 1,200 National Guard troops to the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to help the Border Patrol and officials from Customs and Border Protection.

But the federal government has insisted that the troops will only help federal agents with intelligence, surveillance and other duties that do not involve actually arresting anyone.

Sheriff Wiles says more security in El Paso won't solve the problem because the war is in another country.

"Juarez is experiencing a major wave of violence, and we are feeling some of that," Wiles said. "I don't know of any way around that. Until that issue is resolved in Juarez, we are going to be dealing these kinds of things

****************************************************************

"Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said the governor believes that more security — in the form of federal agents and even troops — could all but shut down the border to smuggling and help put Mexico's warring cartels out of business.
The only way cartels "are being successful is by being able to operate on both sides of the border," Cesinger said. "If you shut down that border, they are out of business. They are not able to continue."

what a bright person...yet no one else seems to think that is the answer...it's really is that simple !!! America grows more stupider everyday by allowing such crime to continue.

Biden will step aside in 2012...Hillary will be the new vp candidate...but... if it looks like Obama is toast...Hillary will be the democratic nominee...what ya think?

7:20 p.m., Wednesday, August 4, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/4/its-now-fact-the-public-hates-obamacare/

Just under a million Missouri voters braved 102-degree heat Tuesday to cast ballots exempting the state's residents from Obamacare mandates. The verdict on the nationalized health care scheme could not have been more clear: More than 71 percent chose to tell the federal government to stop meddling with their personal health care choices.

Missouri state Sen. Jane Cunningham introduced the legislation that placed the Health Care Freedom Act before voters. This act nullifies any statute that attempts to "compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system." Obamacare's defenders insist the federal health care law trumps Proposition C under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which is ironic considering the utter disregard for constitutional authority that went into drafting Obamacare itself. Leftist lawyers are already forum shopping for an activist judge willing to overturn the public will. Even if successful in some courtroom, Tuesday's vote stands as conclusive evidence that Obamacare has already lost in the highest court of all - that of public opinion. As Mrs. Cunningham put it, "Missourians didn't just send a message, they picked up a megaphone and shouted to Washington, D.C., to Congress and Obama."

Not surprisingly, Democrats have been working hard to downplay Tuesday's significance. The only reason the referendum vote was held during the less important primary season is that Democratic state senators used a filibuster threat to keep the measure off the November ballot. In advance of the vote, Democrats claimed that turnout would be meager and the final result not truly representative of the public mood. Their predictions proved unfounded as hundreds of thousands more voters turned out compared to the 2008 primary.

Tuesday's result was also universal. The proposition won handily in 111 of Missouri's 114 counties. As Mrs. Cunningham explained to The Washington Times, the measure's broad appeal came in reaction to the arrogance of Washington officials. "Missourians really felt that the government ignored their voices during the debate on the federal law."

The White House no longer has the luxury of turning a deaf ear to the cries of Obamacare opponents. Twenty-one states have filed suit to block the federal mandates as unconstitutional, with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli earlier this week racking up a key procedural win on his lawsuit. In addition, anti-Obamacare initiatives will be on the November ballot in Arizona and Oklahoma, giving more people a platform from which they can voice their discontent. Of course, the most effective way to send a message to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would be to evict the politicians who voted for Obamacare and deny the president his Democratic majority on Capitol Hill.

Members of Congress wishing to keep their jobs in November ought to think seriously about repealing the president's misguided power grab.


***************************
6:42 p.m., Monday, August 2, 2010
Update on Virginia's procedural win here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/2/virginia-wins-a-round-vs-obamacare/

On one side lies federal tyranny. On the other side is freedom. Yesterday, federal district Judge Henry E. Hudson favored freedom by keeping alive Virginia's suit to invalidate the law that created Obamacare.

The major substantive thrust of the lawsuit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, is that while Congress can regulate actual economic activity in which citizens choose to participate, it cannot force citizens to partake in economic activity by mandating the purchase of health insurance. In short, there are limits on federal power.

By sheer happenstance, the Drudge Report earlier in the day highlighted a video of Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat, telling a recent town meeting, "The federal government can do most anything in this country." Against this notion, Judge Hudson ruled as a preliminary judgment that Virginia's lawsuit "advances a plausible claim with an arguable legal basis." Why? Because "never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far." As the judge concluded, "no reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product."

In short, Judge Hudson is insisting that there are, indeed, boundaries beyond which federal power does not "extend." As Mr. Cuccinelli explained yesterday, "This is not [just] about health care but about liberty and the outer reaches of the power of the federal government."

The Obama administration recognizes no real limits. It had moved on four different grounds to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit before even reaching a trial on the merits. "Virginia had to prevail on all four elements to survive the federal government's motion to dismiss," Mr. Cuccinelli said. "The federal government only has to successfully hang its hat on one constitutional power." Yet the motion to dismiss failed on all four counts, and the case continues. For the Obama administration to go oh-for-four at the preliminary stage is a fitting rebuke to its notions that the national government is all-powerful.

"The commonwealth defies the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] to point to any Commerce Clause jurisprudence extending its tentacles to an individual's decision not to engage in economic activity," Judge Hudson wrote. Such defiance is highly appropriate, particularly in cases such as this, in which Mr. Cuccinelli is protecting a state law against individual mandates. On this point, the judge wrote, "the states have a legally protected sovereign interest."

Read that again: A realm exists in which the states, not the federal government, are sovereign. As the 10th Amendment stipulates, "The powers not delegated to the United States ... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Ultimately, it is the people's own individual sovereignty that is threatened by Obamacare. It's that sovereignty that Mr. Cuccinelli is defending against federal tyranny.

yup...hooked up another keyboard and it works

what an odd time for it to just quit though....

since it's just the space bar could it be worth fixing???

LOL

just/seems/to/be/locked

keyboard/is/clean/and/all/keys/in/good/working/shape

even/spacebar/feels/normal

Space/bar/quit/working/after/setting/up/a/new/user/account/on/laptop

When/log/on/screen/comes/up/...can/not/access/password/input/to/new/user/unless/depress/spacebar/

Anyideas????

Thanks/for/replies

"It's not clear yet whether the oil will remain bottled in the cap after the test, or whether BP will use the device to funnel the crude into four ships on the surface."

hmmm...wasn't this the real first attempt that hasn't included a method to also get the oil to the surface? I'm thinking BP is gonna find a way to try and save this well. lots of oil...lots of $$$

What...but Obama said

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

PolitiFact check com rates this one as promise broken....

Most of Obama's campaign promises belong in the JOKE section because most of em have ended up in the garbage can.

Yup, Obama lied to get elected....

well, it is the fourth...now that's some good fireworks....I bet...