Skip to main content

I live in the NYC area, I was effected by the storm, my house was damaged and my car was damaged.  I was without power for weeks and it took a financial toll on myself.  I had to wait in the longest gaslines I have ever seen hours for a gallon of gas.  The local gas station looked like as it was the "End of Days".  Im still living through it to an extent and my wallet is much lighter.  

So, with that said, I am against any so called Sandy hurricane aid law which does not provide my area with 100% of the funds.  The current legislation on the table does not provide my area with 100%.  Instead, its going to other programs such as a federal daycare program, a weatherstation in Florida and fisheries in Alaska.  

If you are going to legislate to send aid to the New York area then please send ALL of the aid.  I am all for $60 billion in aid and so I want the full $60 billion.  I am sure these other programs within the law are for good causes, but they can go in a separate law.  

Yes, please send us the aid, please send it now, and dont let other robber barons within Congress earmark it for their area which did not feel the pain like we did here.


Over the years, there have been extremist elements who have merged within both the Democratic and Republican parties with their own philosophies on the right to bear arms.  For the record, mainstream and classic Democrats have never been against the right to bear arms.  Let me give you a few examples:

-  Dianne Feinstein-   "I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me."

-  Jesse Jackson Jr.-  Mr. Jackson has a concealed carry permit and carries a pistol on him daily.

-  Harry Reid - Lifelong hunter and gun owner and now the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

While the right to bear arms is unquestioned by mainstream and classic Democrats, the type of arms is the question.  Most certainly, no one should be able to possess a RPG or plastic explosives.  No one should own an electric Gatling gun or a M1 tank.  One form of gun control which has worked very well is the prohibition of the sale of armor piercing rounds.  We dont see armor piercing rounds being used in America.  Another item which is questioned is who should bear arms.  Too many deadly incidents nowadays are involving criminals and the mentally disturbed which are two groups of people who should not have firearms at all.  

There are elements within the Democratic party who will tell us they want rifles and pistols confiscated.  They want a complete prohibition of arms.  However, those elements do not represent the majority of Democrats.  The majority believe in the right to bear arms and let me tell you why.  In 1938, Hitler advocated complete prohibition and took arms away from the Jewish people.  We all know what happened during the next 7 years.  This, however, is not an isolated instance in history and the complete prohibition of arms has usually been the precursor of mass genocide and tyranny.  Over the years, there have been prominent Democrats and civil rights leaders the target of violence.  These Democrats recognize why it is important for them to carry a pistol like Dianne Feinstein.

As Democrats, we should focus on the type of arms which should not be owned and the person who is intending on owning them.  However, we should never suggest that we want a complete prohibition.  I cannot support a complete prohibition because of history.  

Of course, there will always be tragic events such as Newtown.  However, there is another tragic event in history which I will never forget and that is the Holocaust.  I have a firm belief that if the Jewish people were armed during those times there might have been a different history.  

On a separate note, let me say that I am very happy to live in a Democracy.  I am happy that we have the Republicans and Democrats and would be happier to see a third party emerge.  I am happy that we have three branches of government.  Some may view this government as dysfunctional, but I beg to differ.  It is this type of government which prevents the Hitler types from emerging and gaining power.  It is this government which will stop tyranny even more so then if we were all equipped with firearms.


Do you support a complete prohibition on arms?

24%21 votes
75%65 votes

| 86 votes | Vote | Results


Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:14 AM PST

The Wonderful Marc Faber...

by michaelnodav

"The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate. If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, the money goes to China. If we spend it on gasoline it goes to the Arabs. If we buy a computer it will go to India. If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. If we purchase a good car it will go to Germany. If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy. The only way to keep that money here at home is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only products still produced in US. I've been doing my part."

-Marc Faber


Marc Faber Favorable Rating

50%15 votes
10%3 votes
10%3 votes
10%3 votes
20%6 votes

| 30 votes | Vote | Results


Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:58 PM PST

Why George W. Bush is smiling...

by michaelnodav

This was an interesting article I just saw on CNN:

For the record here, there were some things I supported during the Bush era and some things I did not.  

Let me focus on what I did not support:

#1  The Invasion of Iraq-  A war I did not ever understand and which was never adequately explained.

#2  The overall handling of the Middle East wars and the "war on terror"-  there was obvious mismanagement.  

#3  The encouragement of the housing bubble and wild speculative lending to people who could not afford loans

#4   The tax cuts.  Well, I do like tax cuts and more money in my pocket, but at the same time I like a government which has the capacity to pay its bills.

There are things I did not support during the first term of the Obama era which are the polarization which he promised to improve upon during his 2008 campaign.  He has said repeatedly that we are not just red states and blue states, but his actions suggest otherwise.  I dont like how Obama sells his points or explains things.  He explains things in such a way which makes one part of America mad and the other part happy.  It seems as if he exclusively caters to his base.

Overall, the President I really liked was Bill Clinton and those years I remember very well.  

Today, I want us to be out of the Middle East.  I want us to be more united.  I can't stand the fact that some people out there want us to be divided and feel that its "us against them".  

Just my rambling for the night...


Which President did you or do you enjoy the most?

4%5 votes
1%2 votes
29%32 votes
2%3 votes
42%45 votes
18%20 votes

| 107 votes | Vote | Results


Social Security was created 40+ years ago during a different era.  People lived a shorter time back then and not everyone depended upon it.  There were such things as a pension and people actually retired at jobs instead of being fired.  

So I ask, is "touching Social Security" in any manner a bad thing?  Eventually, with the changing times, things need to be changed.  Imagine the roadway and how its changed over the years.  It started out with no speed limits and no lines.  Soon they painted lines, there was a speed limit, the police used radar and now laser to enforce the laws.  As people drove drunk the laws and enforcement changed again.  The road is still hard and black, but many things have changed over the years.  In that same way, Social Security needs to change with the times.

During the campaigns, you might have heard someone suggest that Social Security would be taken away, but as we all know thats just campaign talk.  I am of the opinion is that if the people want it then we have to have it, but if the current form is so self destructive that it self destructs and brings down the government then we need to manage it now and make the changes that need to be made.

There is an inconvenient truth about the debt of the nation.  Half of the debt is money lent from Social Security and in the event of a great panic Congress can legislate to forgive that debt.  They can waive debt which they have lent to themselves.  However, that would totally destroy the Social Security system.  

I woke up last night thinking my life is short.  My father died at age 71 and my grandmother at age 67.  Im not even certain if I will get to use Social Security.  What matters to me is not myself, but the future of my children and their children.  So if changes need to be made lets change it.

I dont speak in support or against any political party when I write this diary.  I speak as a matter of common sense.  If there is a problem, we should fix it now.  


Should Social Security ever be touched in any manner?

25%20 votes
74%58 votes

| 78 votes | Vote | Results


Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:49 AM PST

Should Congress have term limits?

by michaelnodav

Im just wondering what your thoughts are about term limits.  I do not at all believe seeing the same faces over and over again accomplishes anything.  Fresh blood, new ideas and new faces is what pushes us forward.  

Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Ryan, etc...the whole Congressional gang...should have been out a long time ago.  No man or woman should have a career in Congress.  They should serve for a period of time and then go back to their old profession.   Most certainly, no person should serve their entire life in Congress until they die.  

Vote in poll please...


Should Congress people have term limits?

64%60 votes
35%33 votes

| 93 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

The current compensation system for Congresspeople is a JOKE.  What monetary incentive is there for a talented and educated official to run for office?  Once in office will there be some temptation to do something corrupt as a result of a lack of pay?  

For example, lets say a very talented and well educated  businessperson or attorney decides not to run because they feel the $173000 a year is simply not enough.  If you were making a million a year would you run for a position which makes $173000?

We get what we pay for and look at what we have now?  Congresspeople along with the President should get paid based on how well the country grows.  If the country does not grow, goes into a recession or there is a panic then maybe they shouldnt get paid at all.  On the other hand, if the country does very well as a whole then maybe they should get a bonus.

Singapore is a nation with a 1.1 % unemployment rate.  The economy is ON FIRE over there.  Both the Prime Minister and President make well north of $1 million.  In fact, many Americans have moved to Singapore to find jobs.

If you want to get rid of incompetent leaders then you need to give some incentive for others to run or what you end up with is what you have now...

I know there will be plenty here who disagree with me saying they dont deserve a raise...just ask yourself how you are going to attract and retain top talent with the current system of compensation?  How are you going to stop corruption?  


Should there be a pay for performance or merit-type pay system for politicians?

42%14 votes
57%19 votes

| 33 votes | Vote | Results


I have a feeling that "thats it" for immigration reform.  With every passing day, immigration reform seems more like a concept more then a solid idea.  Obama did make a PROMISE  and where is our immigration reform?  The Republicans want it, the Democrats want it, but does Obama want it?


Does Obama truly want immigration reform?

75%15 votes
25%5 votes

| 20 votes | Vote | Results


President Obama has not been very good at explaining why we need immigration reform.  He has come up with various slogans such as "its the right thing to do", but this doesnt really explain why we need immigration reform.  Actually, Obama has not been very good at explaining much of anything which has been his single biggest problem in office, but that topic is for another diary on another day.

The simple fact is that you need more people to buy more things and to pay more taxes.  The more official citizens you have on the books the more people who work, pay taxes and buy things.  We are falling off the "population cliff" where the birthrate is stagnating.  People are getting older and so the only way to make up for the shortfall is through immigration.  

So then how do we go about reforming immigration?  Well, its a bad word in some circles nowadays, but "immunity" for all of the current non-citizens in our country is the best way to go.  Although it should be done in a responsible manner taking care not to let in criminals from other countries, it should be done in the fastest manner possible.  The faster we can bring these people on the books the faster our economy will expand and the greater benefit to our society.  

So the President is right, "it is the right thing to do", but he needs to go into more detail and sell his points to the American people.  Even George W. Bush knows we need immigration reform.  We all know it and when it happens it will be of economic benefit to us all.  


Should non-citizens be granted immunity in a responsible but expedient manner?

77%7 votes
22%2 votes

| 9 votes | Vote | Results


Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:10 AM PST

Why does CNN hate Black People???

by michaelnodav

For the past year, young Black men have been shot on the streets of Chicago and CNN has not covered the story at all.  When there was some token coverage, the victims were painted as gang members and thugs.  No funerals were ever covered.  No donation funds were ever highlighted.  A blog was setup, in fact, even giving detailed maps and profiles of the shootings, but where was CNN?  CNN chose not to cover the story.

There was a shooting in New York City of a young Black man and CNN did cover that story.  They painted the victim as a thug and a criminal stating that this was a "professional hit" and then went on to highlight the victims drunk&disorderly arrest at an Usher concert.  Nevermind the FACT that this young Black man was an aspiring law school student and the loving father of children.  All those FACTS were not reported by CNN.

A natural disaster, Hurricane Sandy, occurs and CNN shows a bunch of middle-aged white men breaking into a grocery store and the reporter labels them as loving parents trying to find food for their children.  The camera then moves towards another grocery store where Black men are breaking into it and the reporter wonders aloud "Where are the police?"

A mass shooting takes place in Newtown CT.  Newtown CT is a wealthy White community and the kind of storybook legend.  Immediately, CNN covers the entire story and even highlights donation funds where we can all contribute.  

A shooting takes place in Aurora Colarado and CNN highlights the shooter's academic success.  They paint the man as a tragic story of a man who blew up mentally.  

I know many people do not like to hear it, but the truth is very plain and that truth is that CNN hates Black people.  They dont care about the young Black men who get shot on the streets every day and who are the bulk of the victims of such random violence.  When shootings of Black men are reported on CNN, both the victims and the shooters are labeled as thugs and gang members.  In contrast, when the shooter is a White person they are painted as a mental patient who really had no ill will or criminal intentions.  White victims of shootings have donation funds and memorials setup.  Black victims have no donation funds setup.  CNN doesnt cover the funerals of Black men.

Join me today in my quest to ban CNN reporters from the White House.  If CNN feels there is no place for young Black men in their reporting then there is no place for them covering political events at the White House.  They can cover stories at the gates rather then inside getting personal with the President.

Sign my petition and help us rid this world of racism by first ridding the White House of CNN.  A more responsible network can go ahead and cover that story.



Does CNN hate Black people?

47%20 votes
52%22 votes

| 42 votes | Vote | Results

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site