that might be correct but doesn't warrant a silly thread topic containing "impeachment".

i'm thinking of opening a thread "Will enhanced Maccaroni consumption in Israel block Iran's nuclear ambitions?"

In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, there is a main road called 'Maccaroni Street'. It leads nowhere.

during my 5½ years in Jeddah i never heard of that street.

that might be correct but doesn't warrant a silly thread topic containing "impeachment".

Considering the Benghazi cover up, the IRS scandal and so forth, impeachment does not all that far out.

since Emperor Jorge Pequeño de Tejas implemented the Patriot Act anything could be labelled "national security" and kept top secret. Clinton would have loved calling the blowjobs in the oval office a matter of national security.

that might be correct but doesn't warrant a silly thread topic containing "impeachment".

i'm thinking of opening a thread "Will enhanced Maccaroni consumption in Israel block Iran's nuclear ambitions?"

In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, there is a main road called 'Maccaroni Street'. It leads nowhere.

during my 5½ years in Jeddah i never heard of that street.

It is where Almas is located:

http://onlinejeddah.com/almas-627.html

that might be correct but doesn't warrant a silly thread topic containing "impeachment".Considering the Benghazi cover up, the IRS scandal and so forth, impeachment does not all that far out.

since Emperor Jorge Pequeño de Tejas implemented the Patriot Act anything could be labelled "national security" and kept top secret. Clinton would have loved calling the blowjobs in the oval office a matter of national security.

. Clinton was impeached for doing much less damage than Obama will, could, and has. As an American I believe it is quite appropriate to discuss the very real possibility of the worst president in in American history being booted from office.

Got my Obama Care Packet today...

I wanted to let you know that earlier today I received my

Obamacare enrollment packet from the White House.

It contained:

An aspirin and a Band-aid.

An "Obama Hope & Change" bumper sticker.

A "Bush's Fault" yard sign.

A "Blame Republicans first, then anybody and everybody" poster.

A "Tax the Rich" banner.

An application for unemployment and a free cellphone.

An application for food stamps.

A prayer rug.

A letter assigning my debt to my grandchildren.

And lastly, a coupon for a machine that blows smoke up my ass.

Everything was made in "China" and all directions were in Spanish.

Keep an eye out. Yours should be arriving soon!

Change of topic -

But still US Government.

The ceiling for US government debt has been lifted above US$ 17,000,000,000,000.00 Seventeen trillion dollars). This is the amount the government has borrowed over the years and still owes to others (such as the much-maligned bankers) and has to pay interest to these lenders.

Thus the interest at 1% would be US$ 170,000,000,000.00 (One hundred and seventy billion) per annum. This is just the money needed to service the debt - money collected from taxes that is of no benefit to the electorate but takes a colossal bite out of taxes (taxes be the main source of income for the government). Surely any prudent government would be looking to reduce this debt, thus reducing the interest payable, not getting even further into debt?

Change of topic -

But still US Government.

The ceiling for US government debt has been lifted above US$ 17,000,000,000,000.00 Seventeen trillion dollars). This is the amount the government has borrowed over the years and still owes to others (such as the much-maligned bankers) and has to pay interest to these lenders.

Thus the interest at 1% would be US$ 170,000,000,000.00 (One hundred and seventy billion) per annum. This is just the money needed to service the debt - money collected from taxes that is of no benefit to the electorate but takes a colossal bite out of taxes (taxes be the main source of income for the government). Surely any prudent government would be looking to reduce this debt, thus reducing the interest payable, not getting even further into debt?

No, HB, you will NEVER have a prudent government in the US (or in UK for that matter) when no elected leader can plan more than two or three years ahead. Or when the system is aimed at electing personable mediocrities rather than real leaders.

To be fair to Obama, what could he do? Say," No, that's where the debt mountain stops. Sod you lot!"?

Any POTUS (sounds like a patent drink) would need ten years at least, and dictatorial powers, to change the trend. The American people wouldn't like it.... it would hurt federal employees, VFWs (veterans of forgotten wars), OAPs, anyone under federal benefits of any kind., (Sorry, VFWs, it's not you I'm being critical of, it's the people who sent you out there). The US is on a one-way ticket to eventual bankruptcy.

The person who drove the US National Debt up most was George W Bush. But Obama's policies are pushing it further into the stratosphere.

I agree that no government has the inclination to cut spending much - the social benefits in place on most First World countries are too large to give any government any chance of reducing the ever-growing ND.

Too many old people living too long means that pensions are costing every country a fortune. When I was starting woirk the anticipated life span was 75-80 years. Now it's >95 years. But the contributions have not trebled in real terms.

Child benefit should be limited to the first two children (after all, it's the first one that costs the most, with cot, buggy, clothes, etc). And from the fourth child onwards there should be a reduction in benefits. We must reduce the population across the world.

The person who drove the US National Debt up most was George W Bush. But Obama's policies are pushing it further into the stratosphere.

I agree that no government has the inclination to cut spending much - the social benefits in place on most First World countries are too large to give any government any chance of reducing the ever-growing ND.

Too many old people living too long means that pensions are costing every country a fortune. When I was starting woirk the anticipated life span was 75-80 years. Now it's >95 years. But the contributions have not trebled in real terms.

Child benefit should be limited to the first two children (after all, it's the first one that costs the most, with cot, buggy, clothes, etc). And from the fourth child onwards there should be a reduction in benefits. We must reduce the population across the world.

If this does not cause undue offence may I shower on your parade a little (to explain the sensitivity, some prolific posters have an issue with the phrase "rain on your parade", go figure?)

Re life expectancy you can relax about the >95 status, see below:

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:CHN:IND:JPN#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:NAC:SSA:EAP&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

You may have missed this but the global population is definitely heading in the right direction, again see below:

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:CHN:IND:JPN#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:NAC:SSA:EAP:SAS:MNA:LAC:ECA&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

while Sub-Saharan Africa remains an outlier, the rest of the world is hurtling towards a convergence below Replacement Level (TFR, Total Fertility Rate of 2.1, ie a static population level), which means that the peak in global population is ever nearer. For a good explanation of this see below, for a third time!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15445092

I could only access the BBC link - the two from Google just left a blank screen.

However, the BBC link gave three alternative scenarios (scenarii?) for world population around 2100. There was a possibility of large increase, a slightly rising figure and a falling population. All are predicated on differing data - none are guaranteed to be correct.

To me the worrying thing is that the population demographic for the more advanced countries is a falling figure, while sub-Saharan Africa (and India) will continue to rise as the Western countries pour more medical aid into these areas, allowing more children to survive and breed.

While advanced countries experience a falling population they will need more and more unskilled labour to perform the menial tasks that society seems to generate ever more rapidly. This will mean the importation of more unskilled workers, who will require the same services as the indigenous population (which are costly) without providing sufficient finance to maintain these services. I am thinking here of health care and old age care.

These unskilled farm labourers, cleaners, construction labour, shelf-fillers and the like will consume more services than they pay for, thus bringing down the average standard. They will also consume more food, live longer than they would in their original domicile. This will contribute towards the creeping poverty of resources on the planet.

I am not an advocate of totally withdrawing help from the poorer countries, but I strongly think that excessive aid will come back to bite us sooner rather than later.

I could only access the BBC link - the two from Google just left a blank screen.

However, the BBC link gave three alternative scenarios (scenarii?) for world population around 2100. There was a possibility of large increase, a slightly rising figure and a falling population. All are predicated on differing data - none are guaranteed to be correct.

To me the worrying thing is that the population demographic for the more advanced countries is a falling figure, while sub-Saharan Africa (and India) will continue to rise as the Western countries pour more medical aid into these areas, allowing more children to survive and breed.

While advanced countries experience a falling population they will need more and more unskilled labour to perform the menial tasks that society seems to generate ever more rapidly. This will mean the importation of more unskilled workers, who will require the same services as the indigenous population (which are costly) without providing sufficient finance to maintain these services. I am thinking here of health care and old age care.

These unskilled farm labourers, cleaners, construction labour, shelf-fillers and the like will consume more services than they pay for, thus bringing down the average standard. They will also consume more food, live longer than they would in their original domicile. This will contribute towards the creeping poverty of resources on the planet.

I am not an advocate of totally withdrawing help from the poorer countries, but I strongly think that excessive aid will come back to bite us sooner rather than later.

Sorry the links to the world development indicators via Google do not work for you. I checked and clicked on them and it went straight to the graphs.

Anyway in essence, global life expectancy 1960-2011 has increased from 52.6 years to 69.9, N.America is now at 78.9, East Asia/Pacific at 72.4 and Sub-Saharan Africa at 54.2. Well short of your 95 year figure, so relax!

In terms of the key data point of Total Fertility Rate, the main point is that World TFR 1960-2011 has dropped considerably 4.92 to 2.41 (2.1 is Replacement Level, ie a flat population) Falling fertility rates are therefore a global phenomenon. For instance Bangladesh TFR 1960-2011 went from 6.7 to 2.2.

The key drivers of falling TFR are urbanization, economic development, improved status/opportunities for women and a fall in infant mortality rates. This last point somewhat negates your view of western medical aid boosting population growth. This my appear counter-intuitive but if you think only half your children will survive you have more. As that threat diminishes people have fewer babies. Watch the link below:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/the-river-of-myths/

Is it just me or am I reading more articles with the phrase impeach Obama in them. He will make it through 2013 but at this rate 2014 will be a very long year.

Is it just me or am I reading more articles with the phrase impeach Obama in them. He will make it through 2013 but at this rate 2014 will be a very long year.

The state of the union speech is due soon and with any luck it will be his last.

You guys are tripping. Obama's NOT going to be impeached. Not a chance. So who are you gonna run against HILLARY?

I read that hillery has something like a 70% lead over old Joe LMAO. Obamas poll numbers area continuing to slide and the press is beginning to question his lack of leadership soon they will get on the program and lead the way to impeachment. Obama will not make it another 3 yrs without being impeached.

He has already done enough to warrant articles of impeachment by the House.

Unfortunately, it is the Senate that votes on them and there is no way 67 Senators would vote to convict him.

Even his gross negligence on Benghazi would likely not get the needed number of votes.

Hillary has her own cross to bear on Benghazi. 2016 could get interesting, particularly in the debates, if she is the candidate

I read that hillery has something like a 70% lead over old Joe LMAO. Obamas poll numbers area continuing to slide and the press is beginning to question his lack of leadership soon they will get on the program and lead the way to impeachment. Obama will not make it another 3 yrs without being impeached.

Not clear about the connection between low poll numbers and being impeached. In any case you can bet the house he won't be impeached. Yes he's a lame duck now -- no point in impeaching him anyway.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I read that hillery has something like a 70% lead over old Joe LMAO. Obamas poll numbers area continuing to slide and the press is beginning to question his lack of leadership soon they will get on the program and lead the way to impeachment. Obama will not make it another 3 yrs without being impeached.

Not clear about the connection between low poll numbers and being impeached. In any case you can bet the house he won't be impeached. Yes he's a lame duck now -- no point in impeaching him anyway.

The low poll numbers indicate the cool aide is wearing off and the reason to impeach is because he deserves it, without question he is the worst president in the last half century.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Fired MSNBC host...ala Martin Bashir, Keith Olberman, et al.

If it walks like one, talks like one, surely it must be a lame duck?

After his performance in the State of the Union address all talk of impeachment surely is now somewhat redundant. With the House under GOP control and the Senate possibly going the same way, it would seem that Obama while out of ideas is not (yet) out of power, but is likely to be responding to events now rather than shaping them.

All a rather sad outcome, but then again almost all political careers end in failure.....

He won't lose the senate.

An advert for a fake product to cure a dysfunction, how very appropriate.

Washington gridlock isn’t the only dysfunction President Obama has become the face of.

Suppliers of black-market Viagra sold in Pakistan are using the President’s likeness to help sell imitations of the anti-impotence drug, allowing the man with the most difficult job in the world to, unwittingly, help others achieve a similar degree of hardness in their own lives.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hard-sell-pakistani-merchants-president-obama-face-sell-imitation-viagra-article-1.1620047#ixzz2uLXyJCzD

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Democrats Could Well Lose 10 Senate Seats In 2014

ByGOPICYMI5,239 views

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Democrats Could Well Lose 10 Senate Seats In 2014

ByGOPICYMI5,239 views

So you're a big fan of MSNBC, are ye?

#1 choice of the cool aide drinkers

Odds of impeachment?

1 in 10 trillion ...

If the senate goes to the republicans and they keep the house, the dems have opened the door for the republicans to pass anything with a simple majority. Even the Main Street media is beginning to discuss the plausibility of an impeached Obama.

CNN Poll: 33 Percent of Americans Want Obama Impeached

Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com

CNN Poll: 33 Percent of Americans Want Obama Impeached

Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com

Not that he probably doesn't deserve it, but at this point, I think he's the best thing the Republicans have going for them. Let's keep him around awhile longer, and watch the rest of the wheels come off the wagon. I don't know what else can happen though, his numbers are crap on the economy, foreign policy, immigration, IRS, etc.