People on welfare are getting free cars in Massachusetts from the govt. They get free auto insurance, repairs, and title registration fees as well- all paid by the tax payers. This is not sharing the wealth- its giving it away! Do you think these people are being tested for drug or alcohol in their system before being given a car? I would hope so! Do you think they have too send in proof that they have been applying for jobs as well?
Fed Govt- added the money for this program- its not the state paying for those cars- its all tax payers!

All of the “polls” say Barack Hussein Obama is winning. This is based on pollsters calling people, etc. But how come myself or any of the dozens of people I know who are voting for McCain have never been called and asked who WE are voting for.

Is it because we have jobs and are at work from 7:30 in the morning and don’t get home until 6 or 7 PM?

Is it because we don’t live in a place where most of the people are “polled”, i.e- San Fransisco, Massachusetts, Vermont?

Is it because they don’t want Obama to be completely embarassed in a huge landslide by making people think he actually has a chance?

Or is it some other reason?

Because almost everyone I speak to in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa said they didn’t even notice anything change, and if anything happened, the wedding industry grew creating more jobs and more revenue.

One example:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmqpPfZ_Bx4hwOP4Sa_kZ.3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070927173329AA5p2n9

Forget Kyoto
We curb emissions better, so why imitate Europe?

By David Freddoso

Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R., Ga.) — one a washed-up former presidential candidate, the other a rehabilitated potential future candidate — engaged in the sort of rough-and-tumble, no-rules debate that Gingrich has always talked about with relish. It was a high-brow argument about global warming, lasting 90 minutes and with no restrictions, between two intelligent politicians — the kind of serious debate that few of our modern presidential candidates could survive.

The debate was remarkable in several ways, not the least of which was its confirmation of Kerry’s attempt, with a new book and a series of appearances, to piggy-back off of Al Gore’s environmentalist movie-star success.

But that is not all that the senator from Massachusetts is borrowing from Gore. Like his newly admired predecessor, the 2004 presidential wannabe has affected that air of national scolding that marked Gore’s presentation before two congressional panels last month. As with Gore, this involved the inevitable comparison of America to Europe on their respective environmental records. Americans, Kerry asserted, should feel ashamed for being such a dirty, nasty lot when it comes to carbon emissions.

“The Europeans are taking this more seriously,” Kerry said of their quest to reduce carbon emissions, and thus (they hope) diminish global warming. “They’re struggling to meet the Kyoto standards and we’re not. We’re living outrageously, as an outlaw, outside of it. We’re not trying.”

The message is that the United States is the Big Bad Wolf of global warming. In particular, we don’t take the environment seriously because we did not sign the Kyoto Treaty.

Greener than Europe?
Then again, Kerry might want to read up on those environmental records before he starts shaming us all. As guilty as we like to feel in this country, we can hold our head up when it comes to greenhouse-gas pollution. It isn’t just that Europe is failing to meet its Kyoto obligations, having increased emissions since 1993. It’s much better than that.

The fact is that, in the years after we elected George W. Bush — a man who would presumably knock his own grandmother into a vat of toxic sludge if it allowed him to contaminate another pristine wilderness area — we have soundly beaten the European Union in curbing emissions growth. This despite our having much more population growth and a much stronger economy.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that U.S. carbon-equivalent emissions rose by 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2004. During the same period, the U.S. population grew by 4 percent, and our economy grew by 19.5 percent.

In the 25 European nations reporting under the Kyoto Protocol, carbon equivalent emissions rose by 2.2 percent during the same period (and by 2.4 percent in the 15 Western European nations). The EU-25 population, meanwhile, grew by 1.6 percent and their collective economy grew by just under 7 percent.

Between 2000 and 2004, America had more than twice the population and economic growth of Europe and a little more than half of Europe’s growth in carbon emissions. That’s not so bad, is it? Should we really be looking up to Europe? One would hope that environmental consciousness is not about signing treaties or setting bold goals, but rather about decreasing emissions. That is where we beat everyone.

It is true that America still emits more carbon and its equivalents than any other nation on earth — about 25 percent of the world’s emissions. But this is not the best measurement of how we are doing. As Christopher Horner points out in his book A Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, our citizens are not just lifeless receptacles that consume and then pollute. Rather, we produce things that lead to human flourishing and prosperity, and in America, we happen to produce a lot more of this than anyone else. With 5 percent of the world’s population, we produce 25 percent of its wealth. Compared to Europe, we produce more jobs with higher wages, and we enjoy an economy that is 42.5 percent wealthier per person. Year after year, we leave Europe farther behind.

Americans should want the rest of the world to enjoy the same prosperity we do. Unless we want a global warming action-plan that simply ignores the costs of eliminating causes of carbon emissions — a plan that forces us to stop flying in airplanes, driving cars, heating and cooling our homes, and possibly even using computers — we should be factoring in that cost by measuring our greenhouse pollution against our economic production. And by this measure, America is not doing so badly.

At 0.55 metric tons of carbon per thousand dollars of GDP (our “carbon intensity”) in 2004, the United States fits right in with Europe, somewhere between the Netherlands (0.63 tons) and Belgium (0.54 tons), well below Estonia (0.81 tons) but well above France (0.26), which generates much of its electricity using carbon-free nuclear power. More importantly, we have been reducing our emissions by this measure. Our carbon intensity has decreased by 7 percent since 2000 — larger than the EU-25 reduction of 4.5 percent during the same period.

Between our existing regulations and individual, market-driven decisions to adopt more energy-efficient (and cleaner) technologies, we are successfully containing our carbon footprint while still enjoying prosperity. That may not be enough to save the planet from hellfire, but if the global-warming alarmists are right, then nothing will be. We are doomed anyway unless we adopt nuclear power, build hundreds of large dams, or find some other cheap and viable energy source.

“You want to impose, by government coercion, a standard,” Gingrich pointed out to Kerry in the debate. He went on to argue that Kerry’s idea of a cap-and-trade system to control emissions is a loser — that an incentive-based plan offering tax credits would be less painful and get quicker results than government compulsion.

He may be right, but the real question is whether either plan is necessary. Even under the Bush administration, which supposedly does nothing about pollution and wants to despoil our planet, we have managed to hold down annual emissions increases and reduce our emissions intensity better than most countries that signed Kyoto. We are seeing better results than European countries that have had to cut back electricity production and lose jobs in a futile attempt to meet the treaty’s arbitrary standards — standards that many environmentalists argue are not nearly stringent enough to make a difference anyway.

The idea that the fanfare of a government initiative — a treaty or a new set of regulations or even a market-distorting tax-credit — would make us any more environmentally friendly as a nation is absurd. Put more simply, it was worth not signing Kyoto if only to save the paper.

At work someone mentioned that there was a bill trying to be passed in Massachusetts which states that children up to age 26 who dont have health insurrance can be covered under their parents. Does anyone have any more info on this? It would be awesome bc it is so hard to find a job with benefits in massage.

“If the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would win (Ohio),” he said. “Those who say (she) can’t win the White House because she can’t win a key swing state like Ohio might rethink their assumption.”
The survey by the Connecticut college shows her narrowly topping the two leading GOP contenders: former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 3 points and Arizona Sen. John McCain by 4 points.
The Clinton campaign immediately touted the poll results in a news release.
“If Hillary leads in Ohio at this point in the race– the key state that gave the last election to the Republicans– then this confirms that Hillary can win and is today winning,” said Clinton chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn. “She is the strongest Democrat in what was the most difficult state.”
Among Buckeye State Republicans, it’s Giuliani 30, McCain 22, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 11 and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 4. (The margin of error for the Republicans is 4.6 points.)
The entire telephone poll of 1,305 Ohio voters Jan. 23 through Friday has an error margin of 2.7 percentage points.
The survey contained continuing bad news for President Bush. Only 34 percent support his plan for a surge of nearly 22,000 troops to Iraq. Just 31 percent approve how Bush is handling Iraq, and 37 now say going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Only 27 percent say the country is headed in the right direction.
Overall, the president’s job approval rating remains at 34 percent, the same as in December.
Despite Clinton’s lead, the poll underscores how she polarizes voters.
She is viewed favorably by 49 percent but unfavorably by 38 percent. Only 10 percent haven’t formed an opinion.
http://360.yahoo.com/profile-iTamzzQ7d5k10iQtozl9aws-?cq=1
Lareddawg, Kerry did win Ohio, don’t you read any? Ohio was awarded to GW Bush by the bias supreme court, That court also ruled against States Rights.
Nick9399, you miss the point, this is a Republican State, has been for 16 years. Plus 2.5 points is a landslide victory for any Democrat. We have the first Democrat in the Governors office in 16 years also. We also got rid of Mike DeWine who was a failure just like GW Bush.

Bush In Bed With Homosexuals
1.Candidate George W. Bush appointed four openly homosexual, gay-rights advocates to his presidential campaign steering committee. According to the ********** group, Log Cabin Republicans, “scores” of Bush state steering committee members and campaign volunteers were homosexuals.
2.Perhaps this explains why hundreds of homosexuals gathered in Washington, D.C., last weekend to “celebrate the achievements and leadership of George W. Bush.” It also helps to explain why Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said, “We want the country to know that we are behind our president and administration.”
3.On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which “for the first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits.” Remember, Bush insisted that openly ********** Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention. It was Kolbe who introduced the amendment lifting the ban on *** partner benefits in D.C.
4.Bush named Scot Evertz, a prominent ********** activist, to head the White House AIDS office even though he had absolutely no experience dealing with public health issues.
5.Bush appointed another ********** activist, Donald Cappoccia, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.
6.Bush appointed openly homosexual, Michael Guest, as Ambassador to Romania. Since then, Bush has decided to leave in place a Clinton policy that calls for supporting the “unmarried partners” of U.S. Foreign Service workers. This allows Guest’s live-in lover to live in the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest and allows him to join Guest at official embassy functions.
7.Bush presided over the appointment of ********** activist, Stephen Herbits, to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.
8.Bush has not reversed a single pro-homosexual policy instituted by former president Bill Clinton. Not even one!
9.The Bush administration posted a job for what is called a “gay and ******* program specialist” at the Department of Agriculture.
10.Bush appointed the ardently pro-homosexual Governor of Massachusetts, Paul Cellucci, as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.
11.Bush appointed Lewis Eisenberg to become the new GOP chief fundraiser. Eisenberg has a long history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion candidates.

You’re a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway.”
Bush to Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin assistant.
January 16, 2004 The Globe and Mail

“It’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me.”
– George W. Bush., three months after the World Trade Center towers went down.

“Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me”
– President Bush, May 27, 2004

“And we’ll prevail, because we’re a faaabulous nation, and we’re a faaabulous nation because we’re a nation full of faaabulous people.”
– George W. Bush., Atlanta, GA, January 31, 2002

His whole Cabinet (”I put together a fabulous Cabinet”);

House Speaker Denny Hastert & Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (”It is a joy to work with these two fabulous Americans”);

His whole administration (”I put together a fabulous team”):and

Writing in NEWS1652, we reported that the Concerned Women of America (CWA) had raised the highest alarm possible on April 18, 2002, saying that the policy toward Gays and ******** in his administration was identical to the policy of Bill Clinton!

http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsgay.html
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/671835/posts
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666

STOP REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILIA
http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

Evidence Bush Enjoys ***** S&M and *** ***
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsgay.html#GAY

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/090106torturechildren.htm