Mccain and Palin is sticking to Obama’s past associations and affiliations, but Mccain was against MLK day. But Mccain is for all of the American people but he voted against MLK holiday because he didn’t think it was relevant. Oh, he had absolutely no problem with columbus day though (its lower case for a reason)!!!!! This is what he said:

"I voted in my first, I think it was my first year in congress against then… I began to learn and I studied and people talked to me and I not supported it but I fought very hard in my home state of Arizona for recognition against a Governor who was against my own party. I had not been involved in the issue. I had come from being in the military to running for Congress in a state that did not have a very large African American population and it had not been in issue. It just simply had not been.”

In a February 2000 interview with ABC News, McCain said his initial opposition to a holiday was based on his belief that “it was not necessary to have another federal holiday, that it cost too much money, that other presidents were not recognized.”

But he’s for the people…This man was what 46 and still not understanding to what the Civil Rights movement was and is about or MLK and his assassination by the government!!!!!!!!!!! And people don’t want to bring race into this, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was born in 1937 and voted against his day of recognition in congress in 1983. In 2000 it was acknowledged nationally. Look at the timeline. But he is for the people, Palin is for the people!!!! I’m not calling anybody a racist; i’m just calling it how it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…

Caucasion, African American, Hispanic, African, Asian… doesn’t matter. I am ashamed regardless of what my ethnicity is. How erratic and ignorant he was then, you can’t tell me that some of his associates were not racist, prolly called people all kind of n****s, sp**s, ch****s and the other ones I don’t feel like thinking about!!!!!

How can someone be against a man of his statue, but want the American people to think that he puts his country first? How is he for America? I bet his associates are far worse than just Bill Ayers and Tony Rezco… Lets open his past, who is the real John Mccain?

oh my goodness did he really?
such a signifigant person in history…
and to vote agains a day deticated to him?
WOW………

mccain might have his mind set in the past.
but people do chage. over time

my grand parents on my fathers side(who is italian) where racist againt my mother(who is brazilian from african decent) and didnt recognize her as a part of the family until my brother was born… now theyve recognized their mistakes and love her with all their hearts…

so i dont doubt that mccain was racist…
but time does change people.
so does war.

maybe idk im not defending him
but still thats pretty bad voting against MLK??? shocking
that was a man who changed history in our country.
and thats very dissapointing… like im not a supporter of him but if i were… idk id rethink just because of this small fact

I have to do a project on it for school and I couldn’t find any information about it’s party affiliation. Can you please give me the site where you found the information? Thank you so much!

The NEA is a major funder of liberal organizations and the Democratic Party, and is a frequent target of conservative criticism for opposition to efforts for education reform. http://www.unionfacts.com/unions/unionProfile.cfm?id=342 You’re welcome!

Or are you educated enough in this field to answer me?
Here is the question: It is legal for a judge to give disclosure of a defendant’s history to the Jury in certain cases where it pertains to the actual offence up for trial etc, but I believe this still leaves room for error (human). I would like to know why we can’t have a law making COMPLETE disclosure of a defendant’s history mandatory at the beginning of every trial, up to now we have statistics which seem to show that criminals play the system like they would a game of poker and normally have a better than average chance of winning. I see the chance here to balance the scales of justice, what we have to be careful about is the innocents that end up in court and disclosure creating an instant bias within the jury. Surely if a person has been convicted of an offence before and has been rehabilitated- they can prove this? If a person has continued in nefarious ways or had continued criminal associations or affiliations- then the bias created would be warranted?
At the end of the day we have a judge that presides over the whole trial and said judge would see any biases coming to light because the judge is accustomed to facial expression etc and if the judge feels injustice is about to be done- and can corroborate their own reasoning- they can step in?
I have a belief that by creating a law that states disclosure of full history good and or bad
should happen at the beginning of every trial- we would be able to balance the scales of justice, I also believe we would get this law past strasbourgs scrutiny because it would not be as discriminative as some believe- AM I RIGHT or do you think it wouldn’t work?
If it wouldn’t work, what do you think we can do to re-balance the scales?
Please be as elaborate with your answer as you can.

The problem with telling a jury of past convictions BEFORE the trial is that the defendant has already been tried, convicted and punished for his past crimes, and we cannot punish him a second time for them. Knowledge of a past conviction prejudices a jury. Just because a man committed theft in 1978 does not mean he committed burglary in 2010. Each offence needs to be considered on its own facts. I see no harm in reading past convictions AFTER conviction for a current offence, so his past can be considered for sentencing. But your plan would see more innocent people in jail, just because they did something in the past which they have already paid for once.

I’ve got a question for a professor of UK law, do you have any way I can ask it (and get correspondance)?
Or are you educated enough in this field to answer me?
Here is the question: It is legal for a judge to give disclosure of a defendant’s history to the Jury in certain cases where it pertains to the actual offence up for trial etc, but I believe this still leaves room for error (human). I would like to know why we can’t have a law making COMPLETE disclosure of a defendant’s history mandatory at the beginning of every trial, up to now we have statistics which seem to show that criminals play the system like they would a game of poker and normally have a better than average chance of winning. I see the chance here to balance the scales of justice, what we have to be careful about is the innocents that end up in court and disclosure creating an instant bias within the jury. Surely if a person has been convicted of an offence before and has been rehabilitated- they can prove this? If a person has continued in nefarious ways or had continued criminal associations or affiliations- then the bias created would be warranted?
At the end of the day we have a judge that presides over the whole trial and said judge would see any biases coming to light because the judge is accustomed to facial expression etc and if the judge feels injustice is about to be done- and can corroborate their own reasoning- they can step in?
I have a belief that by creating a law that states disclosure of full history good and or bad
should happen at the beginning of every trial- we would be able to balance the scales of justice, I also believe we would get this law past strasbourgs scrutiny because it would not be as discriminative as some believe- AM I RIGHT or do you think it wouldn’t work?
If it wouldn’t work, what do you think we can do to re-balance the scales?
Please be as elaborate with your answer as you can.
Aureilus- I believe most officers are well up on the law and know of statistics involving jury cases that are seemingly weighted down in detriment to true justice. I also know you need qualifications to become a Police officer, to become a sergeant you probably need a degree in Criminal Justice or equivalent?

I don’t agree with your proposal. The purpose of a trial is to establish whether the defendant is guilty of the crime as charged; disclosing criminal convictions prior to the trial would unquestionably create a bias, a fact self evident since there can be no possible alternative reason for wanting to disclose them.

I’d go further and argue that those with criminal convictions are the ones most in need of this protection. It’s not unknown for the police to select a likely suspect of a crime and to interpret the evidence in favour of their belief rather than conduct a thorough investigation and in these circumstances, it would be particularly unjust to allow a jury to share that prejudice.

Finally, I’d argue that if your proposal was accepted, the absence of any criminal conviction would suggest good character to the court when this might not be appropriate. Someone who has been found not guilty of serious assault on seven previous court visits would appear on a prima facie basis to have the same virtues as the parish priest.

Radical and Socialist Influences:

Saul Alinsky
Bill Ayers
Carl Davidson
Frank Marshall Davis
Democratic Socialists of America
Bernardine Dohrn
Gamaliel Foundation
New Party
Socialist Scholars Conference

Political Allies and Advisors:

Ali Abunimah
Mohamed Salim Al-Churbaji
David Axelrod
Gregg Craig
Jim Johnson
Marilyn Katz
Anthony Lake
Robert Malley
Alice Palmer
Eli Pariser
George Soros
Cass Sunstein
Dorothy Tillman
Joyce Wheeler
Tim Wheeler

Religious Affiliations:

Louis Farrakan
Rev. Joseph Lowery
James Meeks
Rev. Otis Moss
Rev. Michael Pfleger
Rev. Al Sharpton
Jim Wallis
Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Organizational Affiliations:

ACORN
Arab American Action Network
Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
International Crisis Group
MoveOn
National Council of La Raza
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Project Vote
Sojourners

Academic Affiliations:

Rashid Khalidi
Edward Said
Cornel West

Foundations:

Joyce Foundation
Woods Fund of Chicago

Money Scandals:

Nadhmi Auchi
Robert Blackwell, Jr.
Tony Rezko

Family:

Michelle Obama
Raila Odinga

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=800

Do Obama supporters actually take time to READ and learn about Obama’s associations and who Obama has as supporters? Or is that too much to ask of them, since they are too busy chanting to the ‘chosen one"

No they don’t. That is why they support him.

Gender. Race. Family associations. Religious affiliations. Birth certificates. And now, lipstick on pigs.

These have been discussed and argued on YA throughout the campaign, but they are really nothing more than smoke screen, in my opinion.

Why aren’t we discussing and arguing real issues that are really important, such as the economy, the war, education and so forth?

This is not really a place where people talk about real issues much. You might do better in "Government."

All the same, here are some of Obama’s accomplishments that might give you some helpful talking points when discussing the election:

Obama passed legislation with Republican Senator Jim Talent to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.

-After a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

-His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.

-Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

-Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.

-As a member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan.

-He traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world.

-Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

- In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.

-Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbied the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.

-Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

-Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

-Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.

-Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law.

Since I cant make a table on here, try your best to interpret this:

MALE- 50 (In Fianna Fail)
FEMALE-150 (In Fianna Fail
MALE-150 (In Fine Gael)
FEMALE-50 (In Fine Gael)

a) describe what the table is telling you in words.

b) Is a person’s gender causing a difference in political affiliation?

c) Which test of association would be most appropriate for this data? Why? What do you think it would indicate?

Now I know this table has something to do with the significance and association of the variables. Can someone please explain this table to me as far as those two terms are concerned? I’m also pretty sure that the test that needs to be done is a chi-square test, which tests the expectancy of the variables to appear again, right (something like that..)?

I guess the table is telling us that gender does cause a difference in political affiliation as there are more females in one, and more males in the other.

Yes, a chi-square would be the test to use, and what it does is it tests the observed values against what we would expect and tells us if it is a significant difference or not.

Main Entry: cap•i•tal•ism : "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Here is a partial list of the oil interests which met with Cheney during his secret energy task force meetings.

How is this capitalism?
**********************************

NameAffiliationDate of Meeting
Greg MoredockCabot EnergyMarch 14, 4 p.m.
Jim RouseExxonFeb. 14, 12 p.m.
Ralph J. GoehringBerry Petroleum CompanyMarch 6, 9 a.m.
John MartiniCalifornia Independent Petroleum AssociationMarch 6, 9 a.m.
Red CavaneyAmerican Petroleum InstituteMarch 6, 9 a.m.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/cheney_energy_task_force.html

TO JIM KEARNEY: The meetings took place in March 2001, BEFORE 9/11. They were secret. Cheney did NOT divulge who he met with, or what was discussed.

This information is NEW. Just out. A "White House aide" has made these lists available for the first time.

Also worth noting: THERE WERE MAPS OF IRAQI OIL FIELDS spread out on the conference tables at those meetings.

Cheney was going into Iraq come hell or high water.

9/11 anyone?

You are correct, I think to question our government’s role in capitalism. I’m glad that you referenced a dictionary definition. You’ll see in that definition that government has no role in capitalism.

The Republican party has a long history of corporatism (enjoy the link below) – this, I think, is what we are seeing in Cheney.

From WordNet:

corporatism

noun
control of a state or organization by large interest groups; "individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism"

I’m all for women’s equal “right” to get tattooed. This question has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks it is “proper” or “classy/trashy” to be tattooed. In fact, I find tattooing on women to be attractive, though that’s only one aspect of tattooing. And I highly respect women like “Somebody” on here, who are very smart about and dedicated to tattooing.

My question is serious – not sexist.

Tattooing in Western society has had a “culture” of it’s own, and we all know that culture is about MEANING. What does it mean to be tattooed? Why do people get tattooed? My OPINION on the right reasons to get tattooed includes:
–the images being tattooed inspire you
–the images fuel your imagination
–a more recent thing (in the West): love of art and taking that art beyond banal “canvases” of museums (along with this there is something “deep” about the permanence of it and the fact that it is on skin, w/ blood, etc)

–to mark affiliation with a group. Affiliation with a group makes people feel like they are a part of something larger than themselves.
–a memorial

Along with these comes a sense of permanence. Permanence reinforces commitment. Finally, I think tattooing has also been resorted to by marginalized/disenfranchised people as a type of property. If nothing else in this world, at least they have their tattoos, which will go with them to their death.

Think for example of sailors who were among the first to popularize getting tattooed. During long shipping voyages in crap conditions, they could use all the inspiration they got. And these people really had no property—even the clothes on their backs were often in pawn! If they went “overboard,” the one thing they would have is their tattoos—also what they look at and dream about during long days away from home.

Now why are trendy people getting tattooed nowadays?
–“dangerous” factor. People thinks it makes them “wild” or “dangerous” in some way. But guess what? It used to be much harder to get tattooed. You had to travel or interact with certain “dangerous” people to do so. These people were not “polite,” not there to be nice to you or stand for any of your bullcrap. It sickens me how encouraging people are on this site towards people asking “Should I get this tattoo?” No! Tattooing is not meant to be as easy to get (even if cheaper than) Starbucks.

In the current atmosphere of “Have a nice day,” “convenience” tattooing, any associations of “danger” are actually removed.

–to “symbolize” something. This is such a load of b.s. Yes, tattoos do “symbolize”…they indeed “mean” something. But there are many different ways of representing or symbolizing. The type of signing that trendy people usually do is not the type of signing common to tattoo culture. It would take a long and complicated discussion to explain this… you either get it or you don’t.

–to memorialize. This was the one past (traditional tattoo culture) motivation for tattooing that the trendy people have harped in on and blown all out of proportion. I don’t know if it’s because they see stuff like Miami Ink where everyone (as instructed to them by the show’s producers) walks in with some story about how blah blah happened and they need this tattoo of blah blah to represent that.
Trendy people seem to feel the need just to make ANY mark on their bodies to mark that something happened. “This shooting star is because my grandma died.” Huh?

–anxiousness to be “experienced.” As teens, most of us felt anxious about losing our virginity. Once you had sex, you joined the ranks of the non-virgin population—the EXPERIENCED population! A similar process seems to be at work with tattooing—people are anxious to get MARKED in any way to join this “club”.

But here is the thing: joining the “club” isn’t meant to be easy. There is inconvenience….pain….stigma….permanence. Inconvenience, Pain, Stigma, Permanence—these are the things that the trendy tattoo people are bent on getting around. Everything (questions on Yahoo Answers, for instance) are driven towards avoiding these obstacles— BUT THEY ARE THE VERY OBSTACLES that give MEANING to being tattooed, to being in the “club”!!

In the absense of this meaning (tattoos have become meaningless fashion), the trendy people try to add “meaning”—“symbolism”. In real tattoo culture, someone is inspired by something so much that they want it permanently put on their body. In trendy tattooing, people decide first that they “need” to get tattooed (to become part of the cool, experiened club, to attract people sexually, to work out their psychological issues of things like isolation and poor self image)…and THEN they try to “think up” a tattoo (usually some banal shape or image inspired by commercial logo-ing/branding) and add to it some stated “meaning.” Do I need to go any further in explaining how utterly bankrupt this trendy tattoo culture is?

Trendy men and women are equally guilty of lowering the standards of tattoo culture and turning it into cheap branding. But women especially seem significant in this process. Because of the nature of popular “women’s culture” ALONG WITH women’s historical relationship to the art of tattooing, they especially have sought to remove the
INCONVENIENCE (“Can I pay with my credit card?” “What brand of lotion should I buy?” “How many times a day should I rub it in?” “Let me just get a little star here on the spot today” “Let me go online and ask…”)
PAIN (“Where does it hurt least?” “What creams can I use to reduce to numb it?”…)
STIGMA (“Stop calling it a tramp stamp” “I got my tattoos for me, they are mine” “Why get it in a place where you can’t show it off?”)
PERMANENCE (“How much does tattoo removal cost and does it really work?”).

Notice that the vast majority of people asking tattoo questions on this site are women.

What do you think this means? Thanks
I wish I could change the title of this question a bit; It is hard to articulate succintly.

I don’t really like the sound of "women ruining" — it makes it sound like women (of course I only mean certain ones) as the agents….
I think a better way to say it is that tattooing has changed towards ACCOMODATING this class of trendy people–both sexes, but especially to accomodate some of the desires of women, who are a relatively "new" clientele for tattooing.

I read all of what you have written, and I agree with most of your major points. I do think tattoos have sort of become a trend, and I know exactly what you mean by "can I pay with a credit card". tattoos are a whole lot easier to get now than they were when sailors were getting them. I do think it’s rediculous that people get tattoos in an effort to show that it symbolizes something when really they just got it to be cool. As far as women sort of changing the idea and culture of tattooing… I think this is one of your least valid points. Yes, maybe some things have changed since 1925! But isn’t that what ALL cultures do? maybe it sucks every little meaning behind tattoo culture, maybe it’s just changing and you don’t want to be put into that group of trendy men and women you keep talking about. So in order not to be in it (because obviously your reasons for getting inked are so much better) you criticize it. All I have to say, is that my entire family has gotten inked (except me). Grandparents included. Now THEY got tattoos when they were hard to get! I think tattoos are body art, I think the history is awesome, I think some tattoos are EFFING REDICULOUS (a playboy bunny? what the…?). But overall, tattooing is available, it is growing in popularity, more people want them, more women want them, women generally take better care of themselves (why are you freaking out about the fact that someone asked what kind of lotion to use?). Yes, I think you have valid points. Not every one should get a tattoo.But your whole deal about women and trendy tattoos sort of taking away from the culture… I think your just whining because you don’t want the original hardcore tattoo peeps to be thinking that you got your tattoos to be cool and fit in with the growing popularity of it all. hell, if you want to be original, don’t get a tattoo.

I want you to guess what individual or political group proposed these, and also what you think their political affiliation was. Okay here is what this person/group demanded:

1) Political demands (including equal and universal suffrage, freedom of conscience, speech, press, assembly and association, election of judges, separation of church and state, and free and universal education).

2) Economic demands (including the eight-hour day, prohibition of employment of children, limitation on work for women, state insurance for old age and incapacity, and prohibitions of fines and payment in kind).
Both points came out of the same political party, I will say that.

Also, I intend to reveal the answer shortly…
Okay folks, here it is; the answer:

Actually the two points listed above were the demands made and agreed upon by the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party, the precursor to the Russian Communists (Bolsheviks).

My guess would be the old Socialist party, around the Debs era.