I think it’s best to present this story without much comment. Here’s the basic outline: Pentti Arajarvi — husband of Finnish president Tarja Halonen — was seated next to Danish Princess Mary during a state dinner in Copenhagen last month. But cameras caught him enjoying more than just the food — and so did Princess Mary:
Funny Finnish to Royal Boob
His reaction once caught, to glance up at the ceiling, is priceless.
Some havespeculatedArajarvi may have been just admiring the princess’s necklace. Others believe it’spretty obvious.
A classic example why the knuckleheads in Washington should all be booted out of office....maybe we should sent them to China to become pimps and prostitutes there.....!
U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will pay $2.6 million in U.S. tax dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job.
Dr. Xiaoming Li, the researcher conducting the program, is director of the Prevention Research Center at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.
The grant, made last November, refers to prostitutes as "female sex workers"--or FSW--and their handlers as "gatekeepers."
Here is another fine example of WTF!!!?:
CNSNews.com - U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47976)
And while this passed in Congress last November - remember who controlled Congress then. Someone tell me again why taxes can't be lowered. We are borrowing money from China to train their hookers.
Yet us Americans are struggling to make ends meet.. Don't help us, help someone else who doesn't give a damn about us... This Country is going to the crapper...
Where do people come up with this stuff? Were they sitting around a table and someone said, "we need to help the drunk hookers in china."
Remember who controlled The White House then and had veto power?
Of course, I'd expect you to look past the faults of your own party and blame the Democrats exclusively.
The grant, made last November, refers to prostitutes as "female sex workers"--or FSW--and their handlers as "gatekeepers."
Yet us Americans are struggling to make ends meet.. Don't help us, help someone else who doesn't give a damn about us... This Country is going to the crapper...
Well, a true capitalist would go where the money is and become a Chinese hooker.
Don't we have American hookers that need help?
Exactly. If you ask me for 100 bucks to spend on a hooker, then the onus is on me, but if you ask for 100 bucks and THEN spend it on a hooker, it's on you.
On the other hand, Obama is now telling companies who should be at the helm, how they can spend their money and how to run their business.
Well, at least he's finally found an industry he actually knows something about and is qualified to tell people how it's done.
clipped from: www.csmonitor.com
Bin Laden was many things, but he was not original. He was himself introduced to the doctrine of jihad by the late Palestinian theologian Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Significantly, before Azzam begun teaching bin Laden and others in Saudi Arabia, he was a member of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.
Unlike Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved and learned the hard way that the use of violence will be met with superior violence by state actors. The clever thing to do, it now turns out, was to be patient and invest in a bottom-up movement rather than a commando structure that risked being wiped out by stronger forces. Besides, the gradualist approach is far more likely to win the prize of state power. All that Khomeini did before he came to power in Iran was to preach the merits of a society based on Islamic law. He did not engage in terrorism. Yet he and his followers took over Iran – a feat far greater than bin Laden ever achieved. In Iran the violence came later.
Do conservatives not understand how the deficit works?
Every one of these articles suggests just that.
Seven quick thoughts on the Most Important Speech of Obama’s Presidency Since the Last One . . .
1. The prepared text begins, “This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want.” I read that and hear, ‘I cannot get the numbers to add up.” Or, perhaps, “It was my understanding there would be no math involved in this debate.”
2. There is a lot of blaming Bush in this speech. Quick perspective: Using numbers from the U.S. Treasury, we see that the debt during Bush’s eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That’s bad; that’s basically $610 billion per year. But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush.
3. Obama declares his desire to “reduce spending in the tax code.” What an Orwellian way of saying, “raise taxes.”
4. “Even after our economy recovers . . .” A subtle acknowledgment that the economy has not recovered.
5. It’s rather amazing how Obama sticks to the phrase “win the future” after it has been mocked relentlessly for its vacuousness. The focus groups must be showing something.
6. Early on, Obama declares, “Politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse — that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. “ Minutes later Obama declares, “Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending.” Then, talking health care, he says, “My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments.” So talk about eliminating waste and abuse is a distraction from the real issues, but Obama will do it anyway.
When you get a contradiction like that, I suspect it means the speech was written by committee and they tried to paper over the disagreements.
7. The self-proclaimed “responsible adult” didn’t offer a budget to go with this speech.
UPDATE: There are many, many reasons Obama has no credibility on this issue, but this trip down memory lane, recalling his debate pledge against Senator McCain, is a big one:
“Actually, I am cutting more than I am spending. So that it will be a net spending cut.”
