Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Quelqu'un connaît ?

http://bureaucrash.com/

CITATIONBureaucrash is an international network of activists, called crashers, who share the goal of increasing individual freedom and decreasing the scope of government. Through Bureaucrash Social, crashers connect and collaborate on ways to use guerrilla marketing and new media to introduce others to the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets. In short, we fight for freedom.

Bureaucrash Manifesto:

We believe that individuals are sovereign and own their own bodies.

We believe that every person has a right to make decisions about his or her own life, as long as those decisions do not directly harm other people.

We believe that no person has a right to use force against another person – to steal what they have earned or threaten their body or property.

We believe that when a government makes a new rule, it threatens to use force against someone (or everyone).

We believe that when bureaucrats and politicians have the power to make arbitrary rules, they steal our choices.

Therefore, we believe that if governments are to exist they should be small and just have the power to protect us from force and fraud.

Because we believe that any other arrangement breeds corruption and gives other people (bureaucrats) power over us.

Any other arrangement makes us all slaves to the bureaucrats.

Je les ai rencontrés dans le cadre bourse tocqueville il y a un mois. Ils dépendent du Competitive enterprise institute.

Petit budget (14 000$) mais un potentiel énorme. Ca se développe, ils sont de tous les rassemblements en ce moment.

La logique est très américaine (grassroot) et efficace: aucune consigne réellement centralisée, on laisse les militants se débrouiller, prendre les initiatives, parler à la presse locale, etc.

J'ai cru comprendre que l'UMP allait proposer un projet similaire lors de leurs prochaines universités d'été. On peut se demander comment concilier logique partisane avec une telle démarche…

D'ailleurs vous pouvez rejoindre le réseau social (www.social.bureaucrash.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

2% :icon_up:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government's Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday. The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They're also worried about getting repaid.

"(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers," said Mark Schienberg, the group's president. "This is a cash-dependent business."

The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Schienberg said the group's dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they've made so far.

Le Huff : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/a…f_n_263270.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un néocon du nom d'Obama:

ce n'est pas une guerre que nous menons par choix; c'est une guerre que nous menons par nécessité (…) ceux qui ont attaqué l'Amérique le 9/11 se préparent à le faire de nouveau (…) faute d'être contenue, l'insurrection des talibans produira un sanctuaire plus grand encore d'où AlQaida pourra comploter le meurtre de plus d'Américains

Et si l'Afghanistan devenait la source de la non réélection d'Obama?

(3/4 des démocrates sont opposés à une telle intervention)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pendant ce temps, la presse française relate le buzz de l'homme au fusil d'assaut qui vient voir Obama. L'article prend une tournure … intéressante lorsqu'on y trouve le nom de Ron Paul et les mots "extrême-droite", "terroriste" et tutti-frutti.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/…amp;xtor=RSS-21

Moi, je dis, c'est super la presse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle Obama au coeur d'un scandale:elle a porté un short !

2556286213-michelle-obama-au-coeur-d-un-scandale-elle-a-porte.jpg

Énorme scandale aux États-Unis depuis quelques heures: Michelle Obama a porté un short!

L'Amérique puritaine a été choquée d'apprendre et de constater que le 16 août dernier, la "First Lady" a visité le Grand Canyon en famille… et en short! En effet, en sortant de l'avion présidentielle, Michelle Obama a donc dévoilé ses petites gambettes, ayant mis une tenu décontractée pour visiter cet endroit mythique dans la chaleur de l'Arizona! Mais voilà, pour les Républicains, son short était trop court!

Scoop People vous propose cette vidéo dans laquelle la journaliste explique que lors du micro-trottoir personne n'a trouvé cet acte scandaleux, mais que sur le blog de la chaîne, beaucoup de personnes sont contre ! Alors le débat est lancé : la First Lady a-t-elle le droit de porter un short?

http://www.scooppeople.fr/article-8247-mic…e-un-short.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quand on voit le prix qu'elle coute, elle pourrait au moins s'habiller correctement et apprendre les bonnes manières.

JR, que faites-vous encore en Frônce? Votre place est au Texas! Je sais que les sympathiques contrées du Nord de Dallas vous tentent davantage, mais je crois que Houston serait encore mieux pour un Texalaskan dans l'âme comme vous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Le débat est lancé: La First Lady a-t-elle le droit d'être une vulgos ?

Le débat est lancé: Qu'ont fait les Américains pour avoir une vulgos comme First Lady ?

Le débat est lancé: Est-ce d'avoir fréquenté les Bruni-Sarkozy qui a tiré Michelle Obama vers la vulgos attitude ?

Ah, j'vous jure …

Link to post
Share on other sites
Le débat est lancé: La First Lady a-t-elle le droit d'être une vulgos ?

Il faudrait poser la question à sa très gracieuse Majesté Elizabeth II d'Angleterre.

Le débat est lancé: Qu'ont fait les Américains pour avoir une vulgos comme First Lady ?

Ils ont voté.

Le débat est lancé: Est-ce d'avoir fréquenté les Bruni-Sarkozy qui a tiré Michelle Obama vers la vulgos attitude ?

Ah, j'vous jure …

Excusez moi mais on ne peut pas reprocher à Carla Bruni de ne pas savoir se tenir, ce qui évidemment n'est pas le cas de son mari.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excusez moi mais on ne peut pas reprocher à Carla Bruni de ne pas savoir se tenir, ce qui évidemment n'est pas le cas de son mari.

Je maintiens que Carla Bruni est une vulgos. Version chic beaux quartiers, mais vulgos quand même.

En parlant de First Lady qui a de la classe, me vient à l'esprit Rania de Jordanie.

roi_abdallah_reine_rania_jordanie.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quand on parle de femmes attirantes et encore en age de séduire on est souvent tentés par l'envie de les qualifier de vulgaires.

Qu'en serait-il si Michelle ou Carla avaient la soixantaine passée ?

Est-ce qu'on a envie de qualifier la reine d'Angleterre, Bernadette Chirac ou même Geneviève de Fontenay de vulgaires ? A mon avis non (bon sauf pour la dernière)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quand on parle de femmes attirantes et encore en age de séduire on est souvent tentés par l'envie de les qualifier de vulgaires.

Heu… Non. Il y a des femmes de 50 ou 60 ans qui ont la classe, et … les autres.

Est-ce qu'on a envie de qualifier la reine d'Angleterre, Bernadette Chirac ou même Geneviève de Fontenay de vulgaires ? A mon avis non (bon sauf pour la dernière)

Exactement. La de Fonteney, c'est une vieille rombière insupportable. Désolé. Elle n'est pas classe du tout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suite du message posté précédemment :

I'm safe on board. Pull up the life rope

By Roger Ebert

on August 20, 2009 4:44 PM

Having read through some 600 comments about universal health care, I now realize I took the wrong approach in my previous blog entry. I discussed the Obama health plan in political, literal, logical terms. Most of my readers replied in the same vein. The comments, as always, have been helpful, informative and for the most part civil. My mistake was writing from the pragmatic side. I should have followed my heart and gone with a more emotional approach. I believe universal health care is, quite simply, right.

It is a moral imperative. I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it. A nation is a mutual undertaking. In a democracy, we set out together to do what we believe is good for the commonwealth. That means voluntarily subjecting ourselves to the rule of law, taxation, military service, the guaranteeing of rights to minorities, and so on. That is a cheap price to pay.

As I've read through of those comments (and I've posted all but two I received), one thing jumped from the page at me: The unusually high number of comments from other countries. Canadians were particularly well-represented. Although we're assured by opponents of the Obama legislation that Canada's system of universal care is a failure, all of these Canadians, without exception, reported their enthusiasm for their nation's system. One reader said her mother choose to fly to California to get a knee replacement more quickly, but even she praised the Canadian system.

They said reports of waiting times may be true with semi-elective surgeries, like hip or knee replacement, especially in more populous areas. But they're able to see a physician with a minimal wait in cases of need. They are treated quickly and competently, at very little cost other than personal expenses and the graduated scale of quarterly premium payments. Similar messages came from the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Holland, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Greece and Germany. Everyone is pleased.

But that, too, is an argument to reason. What so many of these messages also made was an argument to morality. They were astonished that the United State is alone among all developed nations in refusing such coverage to its citizens. A Canadian wrote that it benefits his entire society that its citizens have access to universal care. By making preventative medicine freely available, it lowers the cost of chronic illness. By making early diagnosis possible, it prevents many diseases from reaching a fatal stage. By making mental health care and medication available to those who need it (and who are often unemployable), it avoids the American system where many such people are abandoned to the streets or to the care of their overtaxed families.

Many of my readers opposed the Obama plan, some of them in great detail. I will not try to simplify their arguments; you can read them for yourself. But here, in broad outline, are some of their most common statements, and my responses:

It is "socialized medicine." Yes, it is. The entire society shares the cost. It does not replace private medicine. Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians. But it is the safety net for everyone.

It is "socialism." Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which "socialism" is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

It is wrong for ideological or philosophical reasons. Readers have written about their belief in Federalism, Free Market Capitalism, strict Constitutionalism, personal liberty, Libertarianism, and so on. To one of these readers I wrote something like: "Do you think your views on federalism will be of much interest to unemployed wage-earners unable to obtain coverage for their families?" To another, I wrote: "I hope your philosophy will be of comfort if you develop a serious illness."

One reader said that the only things the Constitution guarantees us are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and Congress should enact no laws about anything else. Actually, it's the Declaration of independence that mentions "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but never mind. Some might believe universal health care would be of great assistance in enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness. It is a peculiarity that some of those happiest to cite the Constitution are the least interested in its Bill of Rights.

Good health is a responsibility of the individual, not the state. One reader wrote that he doesn't smoke, drinks in moderation, watches his diet, and exercises regularly. I applaud him. Statistically, this promises him an extended life span. I have never smoked, haven't had a drink in 30 years, and walked an average of 10,000 steps a day for the five years before I underwent my first cancer surgery. A doctor once told me: "If you never get any other disease, sooner or later you will die of cancer."

My reader says he neither has nor desires insurance coverage. He will bank his premiums in a savings account dedicated to his own health care, instead of spending them on the care of anyone else. He must have no idea what it costs to have a serious illness in this country. It will take a lot of savings. I've been assured by some readers, however, that I'm a rich man and have no financial worries.

A guy gets run over by a bus.

Another guy runs over and says, "Oh my God! Are you comfortable?"

First guy: "I make a living."

True enough, I've earned some nice money in my life--all by paycheck, which is no way to get really rich. Also, I had group health insurance plans through my unions at both jobs. They were good plans. But during the course four major surgeries--no, make that five--I maxed out one, and so much for that policy. I'm approaching the cap on the second. Most policies aren't unlimited, you know. Luckily, I now qualify for Medicare.

Federal Death panels would decide who lives or dies. This, very frankly, is a lie. The nearest thing we have to a death panel in the United States is an insurance company claims adjuster. Some readers wrote that they or their loved ones were denied tests or treatment by their insurance companies, especially in the case of "pre-existing conditions." One, who had a brain tumor, says he was denied coverage of the treatment by an adjuster, as if he'd known about the tumor at the time he took out his policy some time earlier. Think about this. Unless we die violently or in an accident, we all die of a pre-existing condition. The condition is called "life."

The Obama plan, in simplified terms, would make Medicare available to everyone. Yes, even the senior citizen at that Arizona town hall meeting who screamed at his congressman: "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" He didn't know Medicare is a federal program, and he didn't want to know.

When I wrote my original entry, I thought there were 40 million uninsured Americans. I'm informed the number is around 47 million. Some readers have informed me: "That number is inflated!" What would be an acceptable number? Thirty million? Twenty million? How many uninsured Americans are you comfortable with?

It seems to me that universal health care is a win-win proposition. It provides an umbrella of protection for those who cannot afford or qualify for health insurance. This helps us all. Every time you learn from the news about our latest jobless statistics, consider this: A newly jobless person who was insured through an employee health plan is about to become a newly uninsured person. It's for our mutual good that we live in a healthier society. To provide universal coverage is the moral thing to do.

I was informed that my entry was "typical liberalism." This is correct. I am a liberal. If you are a conservative, this appears to be a difference between us: I think you should have guaranteed health insurance.

Matthew 25: 31-46

31 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,

33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.

34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, "Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."

37 Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?

38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?

39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?"

40 And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;

42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me."

44 Then they also will answer, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?"

45 Then he will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me."

46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

"Whatever you do for the least of these…"

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/im…u_can_pull.html

Ebert me déçoit de plus en plus :icon_up:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pendant ce temps, la presse française relate le buzz de l'homme au fusil d'assaut qui vient voir Obama. L'article prend une tournure … intéressante lorsqu'on y trouve le nom de Ron Paul et les mots "extrême-droite", "terroriste" et tutti-frutti.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/…amp;xtor=RSS-21

Moi, je dis, c'est super la presse.

Contre l'État fédéral, donc un type d'extrême droite ? :icon_up: Heureusement qu'il s'agit d'un homme de couleur, sinon nous aurions entendu parler de racisme …

Link to post
Share on other sites
Heu… Non. Il y a des femmes de 50 ou 60 ans qui ont la classe, et … les autres.

Exactement. La de Fonteney, c'est une vieille rombière insupportable. Désolé. Elle n'est pas classe du tout.

En effet. Comment peut-on se vanter de voter Arlette Laguiller tout en vendant ses miss? La seule de Fontenay qui a la classe, c'est celle qui porte une robe des champs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama's Big Bang could go bust

Barack Obama’s Big Bang is beginning to backfire, as his plans for rapid, once-in-a-generation overhauls of energy, financial regulation and health care are running into stiff resistance, both in Washington and around the country.

The Obama theory was simple, though always freighted with risk: Use a season of economic anxiety to enact sweeping changes the public likely wouldn’t stomach in ordinary times. But the abrupt swing in the public’s mood, from optimism about Obama’s possibility to concern he may overreaching, has thrown the White House off its strategy and forced the president to curtail his ambitions.

[…]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26341.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
On va pouvoir commencer à construire une croix et commander les clous.

Je lis que la presse américaine qui chouchoute le Messie assurerait que ce dernier serait un vrai homme d'État qui ne craindrait pas de risquer sa popularité pour sauver le pays. :icon_up:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Je lis que la presse américaine qui chouchoute le Messie assurerait que ce dernier serait un vrai homme d'État qui ne craindrait pas de risquer sa popularité pour sauver le pays. :icon_up:

Si le Texas a besoin d'être sauvé ce n'est que de vous Mr Obama!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sinon, ça s'améliore pas les sondages pour le Messie :

obama_index_august_23_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con…l_tracking_poll

Ca donne un goût tout particulier aux bordées de gros calibre de la presse unanime sur les allumés, extrêmistes, conspirationistes et compagnie qui se sont levés en masse pour combattre la soviétisation de la santé.

Soit cette catégorie se compte en dizaines de % de la population, soit les journalistes se sont concentrés sur une frange marginale pour discréditer un vrai grand mouvement d'opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By Taranne
      La discrimination à l'embauche contre les LGBT est désormais illégale aux Etats-Unis:
       
      https://t.co/XzYOmU0wwU?amp=1
       
      Et les républicains se mordent les doigts, car deux de leurs juges (Roberts et Gorsuch) se sont ralliés à la majorité. 
    • By Neomatix
      Il y en a un maintenant que l'élection est terminée, même s'il n'est encore que President-elect. Let ze 4-year troll begin !
    • By Freezbee
      Je n'avais pas suivi l'affaire jusqu'à ce soir lorsque je suis tombé par hasard sur la vidéo de la fusillade, puis sur cet article du Monde (qui brille par son objectivité) :
       
       
      La violence d'extrême-gauche passe à la trappe. Les agresseurs deviennent des « opposants », un fusil semi-automatique devient un « fusil mitrailleur » et le tireur (qui pourrait plaider la légitime défense, d'après ce que j'ai vu sur la vidéo) « n'hésite pas à tirer à plusieurs reprises ». Pour certains de ses détracteurs, Kyle Rittenhouse est un tueur de masse que des - gentils - manifestants tentaient de neutraliser.
       
      Quoi qu'il en soit, le gars au skate board mériterait un Darwin Award ; il faut vraiment être c... pour s'attaquer de cette façon à un type armé d'un AR-15 :
       

    • By PABerryer
      La présidentielle est pour novembre et les principaux candidats ont été choisi. Pour rappel il s'agit de :
       
      Donald Trump et Mike Pence (Républicain) Joe Biden et Kamala Harris (Démocrate) Jo Jorgensen et Spike Cohen (Libertarien)
    • By Marlenus
      J'ouvre un topic pour la primaire démocrate 2020, vu que les candidatures commencent à apparaitre.
       
      J'ai vu 2 candidates pour l'instant.
      Warren et Gabbard, mais il doit sûrement il y en avoir d'autres petites.
       
      Ce sera quand même un choix important pour l'avenir du parti IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...