OMG I love this one! I remember watching him do this....I kept thinking either he is totally checking her out or she just sat in wet paint or something. After watching this again though I realized the answer to the question I've been asking lately...Why in the world would he pick her...He's totally got the hots for her..Has nothing to do with her abilities (or does it :pbpt: )
I do believe that if I hear another political ad in the next 32.45769 hours, someone will get shot. I am sooo fed up with listening to what person A did that person B did not, etc. etc. etc.
Cut us a break. I really think America as a whole is smart enough to either a) research your "favorite" candidate or b) don't vote.
A proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Consitution that would raise the state's sales tax rate will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Minnesota. The measure is known by its supporters as the Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment.
reasons for or against...
read about it here..
this gave me plenty of things to think about...I'm really torn on this one...as much as I would hate to see another tax increase I would like to see an increase in trails, parks, and even more land bought for wildlife.
RUMOR: The DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife receives a large portion of the state lottery proceeds.
REALITY: DNR fisheries and wildlife programs actually get only a small portion. According to the state lottery, each $1 spent on the lottery in 1998 was distributed as follows:
60¢: Prizes
16.4¢: State general fund
11¢: Administrative expenses
5.7¢: Retailer commission and incentives
0.3¢: Compulsive gambling programs
6.6¢: Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.
In 1998, the 6.6 percent that the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund got from the $375 million spent on the state lottery was equal to $24.6 million.
The largest share of that money went to buy and improve state and Twin Cities regional parks and trails. The DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife got roughly $2 million, which went to programs such as Reinvest in Minnesota Critical Habitat Match.
If approved, it will increase the sales tax throughout the state by three-eights of one percent. That tax increase would amount to about $300 million a year of new revenue for the state government.
The state Department of Revenue estimates that the amendment would cost an average Minnesota household $60 a year.
Revenue distribution
The tax dollars raised through the sales tax increase (estimated to be $11 billion over 25 years) would be distributed according to the following formula:
33 percent to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife;
33 percent to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation (at least five percent of the this amount must be spent only to protect drinking water sources);
14.25 percent to support the stateÂ’s parks and trails; and
19.75 percent for the arts and cultural heritage purposes.
My spin:
Arts & Cultural Purposes are always one of the first things shafted during budget cuts - I think they are trying to get money for the arts by tying it into Wildlife. Having the arts publicly funded is the nice exception here - hardly any other state even bothers having funded arts programs.
-- Growing up in a rural area of Southern MN. I have seen absolutely nothing done to improve water quality in over 30 years - the Minnesota River is still just as stinky as it was in the 80's, and EVERYBODY still uses drain tiles in their fields. I may be wrong, but I seriously cannot tell anything has been done. (Which is kinda sad, since my wife works for the DNR on Environmental Programs)
- A lot of water management / conservation has to be done by individual land owners (farmers). They ain't gonna do a thing if they can make a profit from these high(er) grain prices. They only way to truly preserve wetlands, etc... is to buy up land and set it aside, and there's tons of people out there who will never support that idea.
The money from this tax increase would be constitutionally dedicated, so it has to go where it says in the amendment. Just like the gas tax money has to go to roads and bridges.
When they want to "protect wetlands and open spaces" thats fancy lingo for "Keep out, you can't play here".
That's pretty much it - since no farmer is going to re-fill their drained swamp when they can make 300 bushels of corn, the state has to buy up lands and hold them to preserve the wetlands.
Why not let them pass a bill instead of making an end run around it?
Because funding for environmental issues is always the first to get slashed. The amendment makes it so that environmental issues don't have to compete year after year for general fund money. Normally I would agree that this is not the best way to fund programs, but the situation is so dire (40% of Minnesota's lakes are so polluted that fish from them cannot be safely eaten. Ugh!) at this point that we must pass this amendment. Keep in mind that this is not a large tax increase, for the average family of 4 it would come out to about $1/week.
I would like to say the same thing that BFG says if you decide not to vote because your torn it is the same thing as voting NO! I personally think it's unfair but I can't change the law. IF I don't want to vote on something it means I don't want my vote counted. For constitutional ammendments such as this one the state automatically counts me as a no if I don't choose. I also think it's the way of the state not passing constitutional ammendments most people don't have a clue about that little "glitch"
Butler Avenue in West St. Paul is getting busier so weÂ’re changing the entrance to Thompson County Park to make your park visit easier and safer. WeÂ’re moving the current park entrance, Stassen Lane, to the west to align with Butler Avenue and Sperl Street to create a full, four-way stop intersection. The park is open during construction. The new park entrance will open next spring.
sounds to me like its a huge issue for funds... :barf:
Then how about take the arts funding out of the thing? If they really need the money for nature, don't fund the arts. I think the legislature can fund its own priorities and take the blame if its not funded. If its the 1st thing with slashed funding, blame the legislature. I dont think we should "mandate" funding for anything. We elect a legislature to spend our money and make those funding decisions. If they can't do it right, throw the bums out.
Any tax increase is too much. 1st its $60 a year here, then $60 there. They've squandered enough of our money. I pay way too much in taxes for what I get back already. I surly don't wanna be mandated to pay for what someone else may view as "Art" and I may view as obscene or just plain ugly like some of the other so called "art" I've seen around.
This is just a ploy to make the government pay for "art" and I don't think thats a government function. I don't mind the Government buying art for a building or something, but to mandate that we must fund "art" is just plain wrong. I don't want to support government with my money, even if its "not a large tax increase", so it can fund what someone else determines is "art".
Well think of it this way - if ALL the funds were constitutionally dedicated, we wouldn't need to bother with a legislature - or a governor for that matter. :wink:
It's 80% environment, 20% arts. I agree that the arts funding probably shouldn't be part of it, but we need the extra environmental funding so badly that we shouldn't throw out the good just because it's not perfect.
The GOP tells her what to say - now you can, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5fdzji2C54&feature=user
(Yeah, you won't believe this one!)
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1050873/best_sarah_palin_jokes.html?cat=60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mBi7d6e5KI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qUVQDmLf7s
Palin/Biden debate: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/
Couric/Palin interview: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/
Obama/McCain first debate: http://funnyvideooftheday.blogspot.com/2008/09/saturday-night-lives-mccainobama-debate.html
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/3/43222/8057/718/618653
It is very difficult to follow some of her answers so it's handy to have a guide available.
Cut us a break. I really think America as a whole is smart enough to either a) research your "favorite" candidate or b) don't vote.
I'll be voting though.
and if you dont like the obvious choices.... dont just give up...
vote for me.
I'll give you a cookie.
ME VOTE FOR NICK.
the article on the front cover of PP kinda sums it up
But, I guess I can rest easy knowing that whomever gets elected will undoubtedly continue on to break a bunch of campaign promises anyway :goofy:
I havent promised anything to anyone...
the cookies arent even a sure thing.... I just suggested that i might give you one...
you wont know what happens, unless I win.
Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93TJF5O1&show_article=1
at least the ad's are better now than 1952
A proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Consitution that would raise the state's sales tax rate will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Minnesota. The measure is known by its supporters as the Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment.
reasons for or against...
read about it here..
this gave me plenty of things to think about...I'm really torn on this one...as much as I would hate to see another tax increase I would like to see an increase in trails, parks, and even more land bought for wildlife.
REALITY: DNR fisheries and wildlife programs actually get only a small portion. According to the state lottery, each $1 spent on the lottery in 1998 was distributed as follows:
60¢: Prizes
16.4¢: State general fund
11¢: Administrative expenses
5.7¢: Retailer commission and incentives
0.3¢: Compulsive gambling programs
6.6¢: Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.
In 1998, the 6.6 percent that the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund got from the $375 million spent on the state lottery was equal to $24.6 million.
The largest share of that money went to buy and improve state and Twin Cities regional parks and trails. The DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife got roughly $2 million, which went to programs such as Reinvest in Minnesota Critical Habitat Match.
The state Department of Revenue estimates that the amendment would cost an average Minnesota household $60 a year.
Revenue distribution
The tax dollars raised through the sales tax increase (estimated to be $11 billion over 25 years) would be distributed according to the following formula:
My spin:
Arts & Cultural Purposes are always one of the first things shafted during budget cuts - I think they are trying to get money for the arts by tying it into Wildlife. Having the arts publicly funded is the nice exception here - hardly any other state even bothers having funded arts programs.
-- Growing up in a rural area of Southern MN. I have seen absolutely nothing done to improve water quality in over 30 years - the Minnesota River is still just as stinky as it was in the 80's, and EVERYBODY still uses drain tiles in their fields. I may be wrong, but I seriously cannot tell anything has been done. (Which is kinda sad, since my wife works for the DNR on Environmental Programs)
- A lot of water management / conservation has to be done by individual land owners (farmers). They ain't gonna do a thing if they can make a profit from these high(er) grain prices. They only way to truly preserve wetlands, etc... is to buy up land and set it aside, and there's tons of people out there who will never support that idea.
Doesn't the consitution say that lawmakers control the purse strings? Why not let them pass a bill instead of making an end run around it?
When they want to "protect wetlands and open spaces" thats fancy lingo for "Keep out, you can't play here".
That's pretty much it - since no farmer is going to re-fill their drained swamp when they can make 300 bushels of corn, the state has to buy up lands and hold them to preserve the wetlands.
Here's a quick search - 2005 article:
 Minnesota still losing wetlands
Because funding for environmental issues is always the first to get slashed. The amendment makes it so that environmental issues don't have to compete year after year for general fund money. Normally I would agree that this is not the best way to fund programs, but the situation is so dire (40% of Minnesota's lakes are so polluted that fish from them cannot be safely eaten. Ugh!) at this point that we must pass this amendment. Keep in mind that this is not a large tax increase, for the average family of 4 it would come out to about $1/week.
Butler Avenue in West St. Paul is getting busier so weÂ’re changing the entrance to Thompson County Park to make your park visit easier and safer. WeÂ’re moving the current park entrance, Stassen Lane, to the west to align with Butler Avenue and Sperl Street to create a full, four-way stop intersection. The park is open during construction. The new park entrance will open next spring.
sounds to me like its a huge issue for funds... :barf:
Any tax increase is too much. 1st its $60 a year here, then $60 there. They've squandered enough of our money. I pay way too much in taxes for what I get back already. I surly don't wanna be mandated to pay for what someone else may view as "Art" and I may view as obscene or just plain ugly like some of the other so called "art" I've seen around.
This is just a ploy to make the government pay for "art" and I don't think thats a government function. I don't mind the Government buying art for a building or something, but to mandate that we must fund "art" is just plain wrong. I don't want to support government with my money, even if its "not a large tax increase", so it can fund what someone else determines is "art".
fun site
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z3i6YHyB6k&feature=user