Skip to Next Poll »
14
Calling all Lib - tards, my final session.

Well guys this will be my final lib tard poll.  I am not here that much anymore so gear head is going to take them over for me.  

  I have had so much fun with this poll, it brought out so many great comments, and great debate.  I know that the first one I did was the first poll I believe to ever hit over 500 comments, and to me that is very flattering. We have discussed, debated, and flat out argued in this poll. It was a great way for the liberals here on the Q to come together and talk about the issues we have in common. 

  It was also good to see the redumblicans excuses on why everything including Viet Nam is this Presidents fault. (jk)  I always enjoyed everyones opinion in thi9s poll. I just know that we are right and they are wrong.   So with that being said I now call this session to order.

   I would like to take some time to maybe talk about what this President needs to do to help him win a second term. Personally I would like to see him make less concessions stand his ground and be more assertive.  He has been met with the most resisitance than any other President  since I have been able to take politics seriously. I think shame on the ones who never even have acknowledged that he is who he is. The racism was obvious, the outward disdain was obvious, it at times made me ashmed to be an American. We today watched the fall of Gadhafi, and here we are so privliged to have a free society and this Government has acted , well like a 2 year old.

 Ok so there are my thoughts, now tell me yours.

  And thank you, for all the partcipation you guys have given to these polls.

  Please remember that all opinions are welcome, but this poll is geared towards the liberals here. So it can and often gets heated, so if you can't take the heat stay out of the poll. And let's all remember the coc.

 

 

| Closed on 09/21/11 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
17 Fans 
24%a. I think this
12%b. I think that.
12%c. Janet vs all of them
12%d. Becky needs to run.
41%e. Good bye.

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#5 | 1127 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
Wow, you really need to set your desires aside and pay attention.  The backlash against the Tea Party is going to get President Obama re-elected.  The prime example of such is the Wisconsin recall elections.  Gov. Walker will be facing his recall at the first of the year and is already trying to change his image to a more conciliatory posture to "work with" Democrats, and not railroad the working populous as he did upon assuming office.  I wish I could say the Tea Party has wised-up, but even before the Presidents job plan has been introduced the "no way in hell" rhetoric has already started.

The only thing I can say right now, which has bothered me for a while is the blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency in general.  As far back as I can remember, no matter the forum, the President has always been addressed as "President Bush", "President Clinton", "President Bush", "President Reagan", "President Carter", "President Ford", "President Nixon", "President Johnson".....as long as I've been alive.  Now, thanks to wind-bag buffoons such as "Oxy" Rush Limbaugh, and Glen "I live in my own reality" Beck, a far too sizable part of the population refers to the Presidency and President in other, diminished terms; it's a sad testament as to how society itself has diminished, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.  A greater part of society has accepted the role of political puppet / parrot, in lieu of actually studying history (especially that of the Constitution) despite the "affirmations" to the contrary, and put our faith in individuals whose interests are their own and not that of America, nor its citizenry.  For all the heightened rhetoric......all I smell is bullspit.  Bottom line is, no matter whom is in office, if we diminish the office of the presidency we only diminish ourselves as Americans.

"First.  As it is essential to liberty that the government in general, should have a common interest with the people; so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration, should have an immediate dependence on & in intimate sympathy with the people.  Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."  The Federalist No. 52: [James] Madison, February 8, 1788
  
224 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1127 days ago

When people can look past the color of ones skin putting whats good for all ahead of whats good for a few, this country can be the greatest example of what our founding fathers envisioned. To many times the big picture gets lost in the snapshots. President Obama has done no worse than any other, his ideas are great. Small steps and simple language, stand his ground, (like Glenda said). As far as reelection, if the Republicans dont get it together, the point is moot.
I think that.  
#2 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by Sharp Square)



I'll vote for Becky with Janet as her running mate.  I would of put Janet in the big chair but i do not want any mental images of how an "all gay" cabinet handles things
Becky needs to run.  
#3 | 1127 days ago

Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
I think that.  
#4 | 1127 days ago

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
Dont bet anything on that.
#5 | 1127 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
Wow, you really need to set your desires aside and pay attention.  The backlash against the Tea Party is going to get President Obama re-elected.  The prime example of such is the Wisconsin recall elections.  Gov. Walker will be facing his recall at the first of the year and is already trying to change his image to a more conciliatory posture to "work with" Democrats, and not railroad the working populous as he did upon assuming office.  I wish I could say the Tea Party has wised-up, but even before the Presidents job plan has been introduced the "no way in hell" rhetoric has already started.

The only thing I can say right now, which has bothered me for a while is the blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency in general.  As far back as I can remember, no matter the forum, the President has always been addressed as "President Bush", "President Clinton", "President Bush", "President Reagan", "President Carter", "President Ford", "President Nixon", "President Johnson".....as long as I've been alive.  Now, thanks to wind-bag buffoons such as "Oxy" Rush Limbaugh, and Glen "I live in my own reality" Beck, a far too sizable part of the population refers to the Presidency and President in other, diminished terms; it's a sad testament as to how society itself has diminished, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.  A greater part of society has accepted the role of political puppet / parrot, in lieu of actually studying history (especially that of the Constitution) despite the "affirmations" to the contrary, and put our faith in individuals whose interests are their own and not that of America, nor its citizenry.  For all the heightened rhetoric......all I smell is bullspit.  Bottom line is, no matter whom is in office, if we diminish the office of the presidency we only diminish ourselves as Americans.

"First.  As it is essential to liberty that the government in general, should have a common interest with the people; so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration, should have an immediate dependence on & in intimate sympathy with the people.  Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."  The Federalist No. 52: [James] Madison, February 8, 1788
#6 | 1127 days ago

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
You remember 2004 when the Dems couldn't find anybody worthwhile to run against Bush? Yeah, it's like that. The Republicans best hope is Mitt Romney. Not looking good.
#7 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
   And right there the lack of respect for this President is sickening. As much as I hated President Bush, I always gave him the respect and the decency to refer to him as just that President Bush.
#8 | 1127 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Wow, you really need to set your desires aside and pay attention.  The backlash against the Tea Party is going to get President Obama re-elected.  The prime example of such is the Wisconsin recall elections.  Gov. Walker will be facing his recall at the first of the year and is already trying to change his image to a more conciliatory posture to "work with" Democrats, and not railroad the working populous as he did upon assuming office.  I wish I could say the Tea Party has wised-up, but even before the Presidents job plan has been introduced the "no way in hell" rhetoric has already started.

The only thing I can say right now, which has bothered me for a while is the blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency in general.  As far back as I can remember, no matter the forum, the President has always been addressed as "President Bush", "President Clinton", "President Bush", "President Reagan", "President Carter", "President Ford", "President Nixon", "President Johnson".....as long as I've been alive.  Now, thanks to wind-bag buffoons such as "Oxy" Rush Limbaugh, and Glen "I live in my own reality" Beck, a far too sizable part of the population refers to the Presidency and President in other, diminished terms; it's a sad testament as to how society itself has diminished, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.  A greater part of society has accepted the role of political puppet / parrot, in lieu of actually studying history (especially that of the Constitution) despite the "affirmations" to the contrary, and put our faith in individuals whose interests are their own and not that of America, nor its citizenry.  For all the heightened rhetoric......all I smell is bullspit.  Bottom line is, no matter whom is in office, if we diminish the office of the presidency we only diminish ourselves as Americans.

"First.  As it is essential to liberty that the government in general, should have a common interest with the people; so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration, should have an immediate dependence on & in intimate sympathy with the people.  Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."  The Federalist No. 52: [James] Madison, February 8, 1788



Norse , i must say i always enjoy the way your post up my knowledge level not only in the political arena but on other various topics.

One's opinion should always be heard and considered , when that opinion not only voices a viewpoint but can also be used to inform as well it is refreshing whether u agree with it or not. It makes for a proper forum for debate and sadly it seems to be lost by far too many in Washington today.

Becky needs to run.  
#9 | 1127 days ago
John_Daly (+)

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
This country couldnt take 4 more years of Bush either, but guess what...
#10 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

John_Daly wrote:
This country couldnt take 4 more years of Bush either, but guess what...
 


nicely said. 
#11 | 1127 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Wow, you really need to set your desires aside and pay attention.  The backlash against the Tea Party is going to get President Obama re-elected.  The prime example of such is the Wisconsin recall elections.  Gov. Walker will be facing his recall at the first of the year and is already trying to change his image to a more conciliatory posture to "work with" Democrats, and not railroad the working populous as he did upon assuming office.  I wish I could say the Tea Party has wised-up, but even before the Presidents job plan has been introduced the "no way in hell" rhetoric has already started.

The only thing I can say right now, which has bothered me for a while is the blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency in general.  As far back as I can remember, no matter the forum, the President has always been addressed as "President Bush", "President Clinton", "President Bush", "President Reagan", "President Carter", "President Ford", "President Nixon", "President Johnson".....as long as I've been alive.  Now, thanks to wind-bag buffoons such as "Oxy" Rush Limbaugh, and Glen "I live in my own reality" Beck, a far too sizable part of the population refers to the Presidency and President in other, diminished terms; it's a sad testament as to how society itself has diminished, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.  A greater part of society has accepted the role of political puppet / parrot, in lieu of actually studying history (especially that of the Constitution) despite the "affirmations" to the contrary, and put our faith in individuals whose interests are their own and not that of America, nor its citizenry.  For all the heightened rhetoric......all I smell is bullspit.  Bottom line is, no matter whom is in office, if we diminish the office of the presidency we only diminish ourselves as Americans.

"First.  As it is essential to liberty that the government in general, should have a common interest with the people; so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration, should have an immediate dependence on & in intimate sympathy with the people.  Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."  The Federalist No. 52: [James] Madison, February 8, 1788
Do you see why we love you! Your eloquence with the written word is superb.
I think that.  
#12 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
Tea bAggers
Becky needs to run.  
#13 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by MIKELIN8)
Republicans and conservatives can really be proud of themselves. They have stated a goal of making sure that President Obama is a one-term president. They have obstructed all efforts to improve this economy since the president took office, without coming up with a single jobs plan of their own. (Don't I remember that most Republicans ran on a jobs platform in 2010? So....where are the jobs programs?). 

And, because of their in-house propaganda machine (I will not mention the networks' name, but we all know who I'm talking about), there is a large percentage of the population who will be led to believe that what has happened since 2008 is solely the president's fault. Hell, I'm sure that there is a large percentage of the population who thinks the economy didn't go bad until Obama took office! 

There was a perfect example of how conservatives use propaganda here in PA over the last month...the unions for Verizon have been on strike. The company wants to change work rules, make the workers pay for more of their benefits, etc. A commercial has been running on local radio. Its sole purpose is to try to turn the populace against the strikers. In the commercial, the average salary of those on strike, and their average amount of benefits, is quoted. The announcer says that, if the company is allowed to overhaul the outdated work rules, the average wait per customer will decrease by three minutes...THREE MINUTES! But no mention is made as to how much the workers will need to kick in under the new contract, or how much more the company's profit should rise.

What the commercial doesn't state, is the profits that Verizon has made over the length of the previous contract, or the average compensation awarded to their executives, and just what those executives actually do for their customers. That is a commercial I would like to hear...the union should have answer with a commercial stating the compensation awarded to the Verizon CEO, and those who work at the top of the food chain. The commercial should have stated how much contact any of these highly-paid execs has with any of the people who are listening to the radio at this moment.

This is the real problem in America...business wants to drive the workers to a point where they are totally under the thumb of business. Insane profits are being made in business these days, with no investment in the workforce. Now, you cons can tell me that 'both parties are the same', but then, you will need to answer two questions for me...1) Which party has been the party of de-regulation? 2) Which party had a president who broke a federal employee's union, basically giving business a blueprint for how it is done?
     
I think this  
#14 | 1127 days ago

btw...thank you Glenda. This thread allows me to vent...and that is very important.

We all need to vent once in a while.
I think this  
#15 | 1127 days ago

Glenda,

First and foremost,  thank you for making sure this keeps going.  It has been great to have a format to put all
of our various thoughts together on.

Norse, 1000 Respects

Mike- See Filter Error

Roderick- pull your head out of your *ss.    There is no excuse for violence, however, just   maybe the people in  the Great State of Michigan are tired of their teabagger governor (yup small g) breaking unions, firing entire ELECTED city governments, taking over cities and school districts, closing excellent schools, raising taxes,
firing over 5000 teachers and just generally running the state further into the ground. 

Romney won't make it either.  It will be Governor Goodhair vs President Obama
                                                                                     
I think this  
#16 | 1127 days ago

 I wouldn't say Obama is anything close to a sure bet to win re-election.  This jobs plan he's going to unveil in September needs to be massive and he must be willing to fight for it (it will lose; no chance in the House) and then be willing to campaign for it.  The one thing he does have going for him is anti-Tea Party/Republican Party backlash in swing states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.  That and if he's going up against Rick Perry, he has nothing to worry about.
#17 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

MIKELIN8 wrote:
btw...thank you Glenda. This thread allows me to vent...and that is very important.

We all need to vent once in a while.
 You are so welcome, we all do. But Eric is going to be doing them, and he will be great. 
#18 | 1127 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 You are so welcome, we all do. But Eric is going to be doing them, and he will be great. 
 It'll get all Ezra Klein-y in here then.

/Policy Porn
#19 | 1127 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 I wouldn't say Obama is anything close to a sure bet to win re-election.  This jobs plan he's going to unveil in September needs to be massive and he must be willing to fight for it (it will lose; no chance in the House) and then be willing to campaign for it.  The one thing he does have going for him is anti-Tea Party/Republican Party backlash in swing states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.  That and if he's going up against Rick Perry, he has nothing to worry about.
 Jon Huntsman----------only redeeming Republican in the race?   I think so. 
Becky needs to run.  
#20 | 1127 days ago

kteacher wrote:
 Jon Huntsman----------only redeeming Republican in the race?   I think so. 
 If he was even remotely moderate on the economy I'd seriously consider voting for him.  He's a solid guy and not insane.
#21 | 1127 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 If he was even remotely moderate on the economy I'd seriously consider voting for him.  He's a solid guy and not insane.
 Agreed. 
Becky needs to run.  
#22 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

kantwistaye wrote:
 It'll get all Ezra Klein-y in here then.

/Policy Porn
 Well  it will be a very popular poll then.  
#23 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 Ok, but what I am wondering is, what does this President have to do to help assure a second term?  The tea party is doing more to help us then they even realize, but I don't think it's enough to ensure a second term. 
#24 | 1127 days ago

Sharp Square wrote:



I'll vote for Becky with Janet as her running mate.  I would of put Janet in the big chair but i do not want any mental images of how an "all gay" cabinet handles things
Don't be stupid.  I'd use lesbians.  Those bitches get sh*t DONE.  

Otherwise, I don't think Obama is going to have an easy time getting re-elected.  However, it all boils down to who he's up against and how things go economically/politically until then.
I don't think there are ANY redeeming Republicans since none of them, that I'm aware of, are ok with gay marriage.  I don't want ANYONE leading my country who doesn't feel that every American deserves the exact same rights and privileges.  
Good bye.  
#25 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
janet011685 wrote:
Don't be stupid.  I'd use lesbians.  Those bitches get sh*t DONE.  

Otherwise, I don't think Obama is going to have an easy time getting re-elected.  However, it all boils down to who he's up against and how things go economically/politically until then.
I don't think there are ANY redeeming Republicans since none of them, that I'm aware of, are ok with gay marriage.  I don't want ANYONE leading my country who doesn't feel that every American deserves the exact same rights and privileges.  
 Amen, and right there is one of the biggest differences  in these two parties. How hard can it be to realize we are governed  by the constitution and not the Holy Bible. If you are not gay then you're not gay, if you are you are, but the one thing  gays and straights should have in common,  is the same basic rights as Americans. 




Oh my gosh, I said is are, I'm surprised Becky is not already at my door with a third grade English book. 
#26 | 1127 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Don't be stupid.  I'd use lesbians.  Those bitches get sh*t DONE.  

Otherwise, I don't think Obama is going to have an easy time getting re-elected.  However, it all boils down to who he's up against and how things go economically/politically until then.
I don't think there are ANY redeeming Republicans since none of them, that I'm aware of, are ok with gay marriage.  I don't want ANYONE leading my country who doesn't feel that every American deserves the exact same rights and privileges.  
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/jon-huntsman-new-york-gay-marriage_n_881655.html
Becky needs to run.  
#27 | 1127 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

kteacher wrote:
 Jon Huntsman----------only redeeming Republican in the race?   I think so. 
I couldn't agree more Becky.  When I was watching the news broadcast featuring a story about him, all I could think is: "Finally, some element of sanity has entered the presidential primary race".
#28 | 1127 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
I couldn't agree more Becky.  When I was watching the news broadcast featuring a story about him, all I could think is: "Finally, some element of sanity has entered the presidential primary race".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/10-jon-huntsman-tweets_n_934213.html#s336545&title=A_GOP_evolution
I think this  
#29 | 1127 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Don't be stupid.  I'd use lesbians.  Those bitches get sh*t DONE.  

Otherwise, I don't think Obama is going to have an easy time getting re-elected.  However, it all boils down to who he's up against and how things go economically/politically until then.
I don't think there are ANY redeeming Republicans since none of them, that I'm aware of, are ok with gay marriage.  I don't want ANYONE leading my country who doesn't feel that every American deserves the exact same rights and privileges.  


Lesbians (head slap) - had a brain fart or temporary lack in judgement what ever ya want to call it there for a minute !  How the hell could lesbians not come to mind , sometimes even the slow bus doesn't have room for me.  Just promise me Ellen gets some position cause her i dig !


Becky needs to run.  
#30 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

kteacher wrote:  Interesting article, but interesting choice of words, he would respect same sex marriage.  Well it's more than most republican politicians are willing to say.   
#31 | 1127 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Interesting article, but interesting choice of words, he would respect same sex marriage.  Well it's more than most republican politicians are willing to say.   
 Glenda-----it's about the same (if not more) than what President Obama said about it. 
Becky needs to run.  
#32 | 1127 days ago

He said he would be willing to be Michelle Bachmans VP.      No thank you.      
I think this  
#33 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
ohwell_ wrote:
He said he would be willing to be Michelle Bachmans VP.      No thank you.      
 ok. Out. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8718799/US-election-2012-Jon-Huntsman-would-consider-being-Michele-Bachmanns-running-mate.html
Becky needs to run.  
#34 | 1127 days ago

Can't wait until this comes out in Januarywww.amazon.com/Tea-Party-Patriots-Politics-Revolution/dp/0805094377/ref=sr_1_1
I think this  
#35 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
kteacher wrote:
 Glenda-----it's about the same (if not more) than what President Obama said about it. 
 This is true. And like I said at least he said that much. I was impressed with it. But I really do not want to elect her to have him you know what I mean. To bad though, he may have been someone worth watching. 
#36 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ohwell_ wrote:  I personally can't wait to read it, I LOVE good fiction.  
#37 | 1127 days ago

kteacher wrote: To me, that's a lot of "states' rights" mumbo-jumbo.  
Just the fancy GOP way of saying "I don't want to alienate my base, but I want to get swing voters, but there's no way in HELL I'll allow a federal amendment to pass".

Without the 1800+ federal protections afforded to married couples, state marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships = STILL second class citizens.

He needs to do better than that.  Huntsman FAIL.
Good bye.  
#38 | 1127 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
To me, that's a lot of "states' rights" mumbo-jumbo.  
Just the fancy GOP way of saying "I don't want to alienate my base, but I want to get swing voters, but there's no way in HELL I'll allow a federal amendment to pass".

Without the 1800+ federal protections afforded to married couples, state marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships = STILL second class citizens.

He needs to do better than that.  Huntsman FAIL.
 Agreed. I only posted the link so people can see what his view is. Geez Louise. 



Becky needs to run.  
#39 | 1127 days ago

kteacher wrote:
 Agreed. I only posted the link so people can see what his view is. Geez Louise. 



I wasn't yelling at you.  lol  Sorry.
I just hate the little "loopholes" some of these politicians are finding to excite their base AND try to get swing voters who don't see through the BS charade.  
Good bye.  
#40 | 1127 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I wasn't yelling at you.  lol  Sorry.
I just hate the little "loopholes" some of these politicians are finding to excite their base AND try to get swing voters who don't see through the BS charade.  
 lol. I know and I get it. 
Becky needs to run.  
#41 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

janet011685 wrote:
To me, that's a lot of "states' rights" mumbo-jumbo.  
Just the fancy GOP way of saying "I don't want to alienate my base, but I want to get swing voters, but there's no way in HELL I'll allow a federal amendment to pass".

Without the 1800+ federal protections afforded to married couples, state marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships = STILL second class citizens.

He needs to do better than that.  Huntsman FAIL.
 I got out of the article, he would do nothing to interfere with a state no matter which way a vote would go.  As becky pointed out about as much as our President said about it.   I am ready for one presidential candidate to stand up and say I endorse same sex marriage. 
#42 | 1127 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 It'll get all Ezra Klein-y in here then.

/Policy Porn
So?

(Note: I actually thought I was taking over the poll this week, and had 4 questions ready to ask for it. So yeah, it's about to get wonky in here. Charts welcome.)
#43 | 1127 days ago

Speaking of Ezra, he and Matt Yglesias were looking bad to what Obama could've done (see here and here), and I think it has revelance to what can be done now. In the end, the "buck stops with the President" meme is a bit of a misnomer. He's not a king, which was the whole point of that Constitution, checks and balances thing. As a result, the answer to what Obama can do is essentially nothing. Anything he proposes is DOA to the GOP Congress. Now, I expect his job plan to include extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, and hopefully an Infrastructure Bank. He should of course make it a very public fight with the Republicans. Their obstruction has to be shown for all to see. I can't full tell due to the DC bubble, but seeing Congress hated even more than the President makes me wonder if people are realizing the bill of goods the GOP sold them in November.
#44 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
Eric_ wrote:
So?

(Note: I actually thought I was taking over the poll this week, and had 4 questions ready to ask for it. So yeah, it's about to get wonky in here. Charts welcome.)
 Lmao, sorry Eric kinda wanted to say good bye to it.  

of all my polls this one is my baby.  But I am so happy you agreed to do it. Thank you. 
#45 | 1127 days ago

Courtesy of Public Policy PollingCourtesy of Public Policy Polling


THESE BIRTHERS ARE LIKE A BAD CASE OF THE CLAP---


BTW-Richard Engel is way hot and completely out of his mind.  LINE OF FIRE.......News from Tripoli
I think this  
#46 | 1127 days ago

Democrats concerned about the earthquake. Republicans will probably start voicing concern over Godzilla attacks, just to be argumentative........ and Glenda you one REAL a$$ white gurl 
I think this  
#47 | 1127 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Courtesy of Public Policy PollingCourtesy of Public Policy Polling


THESE BIRTHERS ARE LIKE A BAD CASE OF THE CLAP---


BTW-Richard Engel is way hot and completely out of his mind.  LINE OF FIRE.......News from Tripoli
 What state was that polling in?
#48 | 1127 days ago

Any state in the southeast and southwest.
#49 | 1127 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 What state was that polling in?
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/08/public_policy_p_3.shtml?refid=0


Do need I need to start citing my references?  I will....
I think this  
#50 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

coyotedances wrote:
Democrats concerned about the earthquake. Republicans will probably start voicing concern over Godzilla attacks, just to be argumentative........ and Glenda you one REAL a$$ white gurl 
 


And here you thought I was just a Cubs fan.  Trust me this is where Rob and I disagree, so he stays out of here for sake of the friendship. 
#51 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
ohwell_ wrote:
Courtesy of Public Policy PollingCourtesy of Public Policy Polling


THESE BIRTHERS ARE LIKE A BAD CASE OF THE CLAP---


BTW-Richard Engel is way hot and completely out of his mind.  LINE OF FIRE.......News from Tripoli
So apparently Perry so far is the choice in Mn.  I gotta tell ya, I really am hoping for Bachmann or Palin. 
#52 | 1127 days ago

ohwell_ wrote: I was just wondering if those were bad numbers for Romney or really bad numbers for Romney.

Instead its likely just polling that will push someone like Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, or some other wild card into the race convinced (probably rightfully so) that's there is no reason why they can't win this primary... which shows how awful this field of Republicans is.
#53 | 1127 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
So apparently Perry so far is the choice in Mn.  I gotta tell ya, I really am hoping for Bachmann or Palin. 
Palin is very very very scary :o
I think that.  
#54 | 1127 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

JenX63 wrote:
Palin is very very very scary :o
 I know, especially when she speaks. 
#55 | 1126 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
He said he would be willing to be Michelle Bachmans VP.      No thank you.      
 A long term political move on his part. #2's in Republican primaries tend to win the next time around.  This is his way of appealing to the crazies without being crazy so he could potentially finish second (or even get a VP nom) and then win the primary in 2016.
#56 | 1126 days ago

das3cr wrote:
Did you happen to see that democrats are shooting non union workers in the Toledo/Michigan area this week?  (In my home town!)  Great bunch them liberals.   Obamasiah is a one term guy.  This country can't take 4 more years of him ... heck .. we can't even take the first 4.

bottom line :

516 days until the O bummer is out of office.
That may be true. But we should have done a lot better about who we chose to succeed him. We obviously failed in that endeavour. Unless ruin was the goal. We have plenty of that.
I think that.  
#57 | 1126 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Wow, you really need to set your desires aside and pay attention.  The backlash against the Tea Party is going to get President Obama re-elected.  The prime example of such is the Wisconsin recall elections.  Gov. Walker will be facing his recall at the first of the year and is already trying to change his image to a more conciliatory posture to "work with" Democrats, and not railroad the working populous as he did upon assuming office.  I wish I could say the Tea Party has wised-up, but even before the Presidents job plan has been introduced the "no way in hell" rhetoric has already started.

The only thing I can say right now, which has bothered me for a while is the blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency in general.  As far back as I can remember, no matter the forum, the President has always been addressed as "President Bush", "President Clinton", "President Bush", "President Reagan", "President Carter", "President Ford", "President Nixon", "President Johnson".....as long as I've been alive.  Now, thanks to wind-bag buffoons such as "Oxy" Rush Limbaugh, and Glen "I live in my own reality" Beck, a far too sizable part of the population refers to the Presidency and President in other, diminished terms; it's a sad testament as to how society itself has diminished, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.  A greater part of society has accepted the role of political puppet / parrot, in lieu of actually studying history (especially that of the Constitution) despite the "affirmations" to the contrary, and put our faith in individuals whose interests are their own and not that of America, nor its citizenry.  For all the heightened rhetoric......all I smell is bullspit.  Bottom line is, no matter whom is in office, if we diminish the office of the presidency we only diminish ourselves as Americans.

"First.  As it is essential to liberty that the government in general, should have a common interest with the people; so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration, should have an immediate dependence on & in intimate sympathy with the people.  Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."  The Federalist No. 52: [James] Madison, February 8, 1788
I guess you didn't notice that the democrats where shoting people at their homes for daring to work without a union card.  I don't think that will win the hearts and minds of the people who don't support mob run unions. As far as respecting the Office.  Well, I will when it's won back from the depths of despair. Hopefully a Tea Party candidate will win it.
I think that.  
#58 | 1126 days ago

das3cr wrote:
I guess you didn't notice that the democrats where shoting people at their homes for daring to work without a union card.  I don't think that will win the hearts and minds of the people who don't support mob run unions. As far as respecting the Office.  Well, I will when it's won back from the depths of despair. Hopefully a Tea Party candidate will win it.
Tea Party Candidate= Hates big government ONLY when it doesn't apply to them. 
Becky needs to run.  
#59 | 1126 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

das3cr wrote:
I guess you didn't notice that the democrats where shoting people at their homes for daring to work without a union card.  I don't think that will win the hearts and minds of the people who don't support mob run unions. As far as respecting the Office.  Well, I will when it's won back from the depths of despair. Hopefully a Tea Party candidate will win it.
Provide a link to the "shooting" as I have yet to see it. 

As for respecting the office--it's either something you do, or you don't.  Rationalizations are just an excuse for some other motive.

As for hoping the Tea Party wins it......if you've studied the Tea Party's platform, and how far they'll go to institute their ideals, you would see that they are a theologically fascist organization.  I can pull a number of historical quote I can guarantee you would not want to see with similar focus.
#60 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
Please allow me to ramble here.

I have a few older friends who over cocktails the other night were expressing their wonderment as to why
young people don't protest anymore.  Why are they so apathetic?   Do they not know how?  Do they not  realize
how screwed they are by Wallstreet and bankers and Washington?  Why do they Sit on their butts and not try to be heard?

So anyway, apparently the message spread and is now a cause on Facebook. It's called A March.
Happening Sept. 1 wherever you are.    Here's a Youtube link: www.youtube.com/watch

Any thoughts?  
I think this  
#61 | 1126 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Please allow me to ramble here.

I have a few older friends who over cocktails the other night were expressing their wonderment as to why
young people don't protest anymore.  Why are they so apathetic?   Do they not know how?  Do they not  realize
how screwed they are by Wallstreet and bankers and Washington?  Why do they Sit on their butts and not try to be heard?

So anyway, apparently the message spread and is now a cause on Facebook. It's called A March.
Happening Sept. 1 wherever you are.    Here's a Youtube link: www.youtube.com/watch

Any thoughts?  
Ugh, it's just that ... apathy.  
My generation kind of sucks.  They're all too busy downloading apps and watching Snooki take a huge dump all over thought-provoking television (that's kind of an oxymoron these days).
Good bye.  
#62 | 1126 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Ugh, it's just that ... apathy.  
My generation kind of sucks.  They're all too busy downloading apps and watching Snooki take a huge dump all over thought-provoking television (that's kind of an oxymoron these days).
www.youtube.com/watch  Wow, New video.
I think this  
#63 | 1126 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ohwell_ wrote:
Please allow me to ramble here.

I have a few older friends who over cocktails the other night were expressing their wonderment as to why
young people don't protest anymore.  Why are they so apathetic?   Do they not know how?  Do they not  realize
how screwed they are by Wallstreet and bankers and Washington?  Why do they Sit on their butts and not try to be heard?

So anyway, apparently the message spread and is now a cause on Facebook. It's called A March.
Happening Sept. 1 wherever you are.    Here's a Youtube link: www.youtube.com/watch

Any thoughts?  
 I used to march in Chicago for N.O.W..  And when I told my daughters this they asked me why? I told them it shows people you believe in something strong enough to make yourself look silly for it.   
#64 | 1126 days ago

It all has to do with the perception of the economy.  If the election were held right now, now way would he be re-elected as things are WAY worse than when he started.  This can all change next year, however.  But if things are worse at election time in 2012 than they were at election time 2008...  He will be a one term Pres.  He basically has just over a year to improve things...  Or at least, give the appearance that his administration has improved things.
#65 | 1126 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I wasn't yelling at you.  lol  Sorry.
I just hate the little "loopholes" some of these politicians are finding to excite their base AND try to get swing voters who don't see through the BS charade.  
Almost ALL politicians do that.  Including our current President and former Presidents.  I have always said that R's and D's are more alike than they are different.  I still stand by that.
#66 | 1126 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Almost ALL politicians do that.  Including our current President and former Presidents.  I have always said that R's and D's are more alike than they are different.  I still stand by that.
Yes, they do.  Especially on hot-button issues like gay marriage.  And I'm not ok with it from either side.  
My liberal/Democrat allegiance is based on far more than just that.  No need to get into that, however ... I think we've butt heads enough on the taxation issues, and that's another point of contention that I have with Republicans.  I don't agree with their stance on federal tax brackets, or their reasoning behind it.
Good bye.  
#67 | 1126 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Yes, they do.  Especially on hot-button issues like gay marriage.  And I'm not ok with it from either side.  
My liberal/Democrat allegiance is based on far more than just that.  No need to get into that, however ... I think we've butt heads enough on the taxation issues, and that's another point of contention that I have with Republicans.  I don't agree with their stance on federal tax brackets, or their reasoning behind it.
Nothing wrong with that.

I have no allegiance to any side as neither fully embraces my personal fiscally conservative/socially moderate stance on things.
#68 | 1126 days ago

 Two Teachers and a Microphone
Becky needs to run.  
#69 | 1126 days ago

kteacher wrote: walk into a bar...
Good bye.  
#70 | 1126 days ago

 Pretty nice blog/article on The Class War.
Becky needs to run.  
#71 | 1126 days ago

Regrettable Tweets

I think this  
#72 | 1126 days ago

kteacher wrote:
 Pretty nice blog/article on The Class War.
Yet whenever someone mentions the rich possibly paying more in taxes, it's denounced as class warfare. This just in, there's been a class war for decade, and the rich are winning. The GOP now being for the expiration of the payroll tax cut shows it's still ongoing.

One thing I just don't get is how vindictive Americans can be. They look at people with retirement and health benefits and instead of trying to get it for themselves, they want to take it away from the people that have those benefits. I know part of that is the propaganda of the wealthy and corporations, but overall, I don't get it. I just don't.
#73 | 1126 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
walk into a bar...
Good God Ash.    Lmao. 
#74 | 1126 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

Eric_ wrote:
Yet whenever someone mentions the rich possibly paying more in taxes, it's denounced as class warfare. This just in, there's been a class war for decade, and the rich are winning. The GOP now being for the expiration of the payroll tax cut shows it's still ongoing.

One thing I just don't get is how vindictive Americans can be. They look at people with retirement and health benefits and instead of trying to get it for themselves, they want to take it away from the people that have those benefits. I know part of that is the propaganda of the wealthy and corporations, but overall, I don't get it. I just don't.
So you ready for this? It is such a cool poll and you are going to rock it. 
#75 | 1126 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
Good God Ash.    Lmao. 
Good bye.  
#76 | 1126 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
Yet whenever someone mentions the rich possibly paying more in taxes, it's denounced as class warfare. This just in, there's been a class war for decade, and the rich are winning. The GOP now being for the expiration of the payroll tax cut shows it's still ongoing.

One thing I just don't get is how vindictive Americans can be. They look at people with retirement and health benefits and instead of trying to get it for themselves, they want to take it away from the people that have those benefits. I know part of that is the propaganda of the wealthy and corporations, but overall, I don't get it. I just don't.
My guess is that you aren't getting it because it just doesn't happen.  I can think of no one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing benefits.  The implication that one party wants to screw the unfortunate is nothing more than propaganda to try to  demonize an opposing party. 
#77 | 1125 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
ML31 wrote:
My guess is that you aren't getting it because it just doesn't happen.  I can think of no one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing benefits.  The implication that one party wants to screw the unfortunate is nothing more than propaganda to try to  demonize an opposing party. 
No, it's not......  When my wife's company got taken over, the new corporation raised our contribution to health insurance to triple our original contribution within a 6 week period.  Guess where that money was deducted in our budget--food and clothing.  The sad irony is that what you deem propaganda is most likely your own conscience not wanting to admit to yourself that these kinds of actions don't really happen, it's just people who want more for less.  FYI, the next quarter, they posted an increase to their profits....  So, they got richer, and we got phuqued.....

In Gov. Rick Perry's State of Texas, one of his former cabinet members is running for congress.  In a state where they're going to possibly lay off 100,000 teachers and increase class sizes to over 40 per room to meet a $4B budget deficit (despite having $6B available in a "rainy day fund"), the state with the lowest graduation rate in the nation, most minimum wage jobs, and highest economic disparity in the country--here's how the economic elite view the working class:

www.youtube.com/watch

As for not being able to think of one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing their benefits, how about Social Security?  Shall I continue?  The Republicans are the Guns, (Christian) God, and Corporations party: the latter supports the former to keep their support in furthering their economic objectives.  If the right had it's way, America would be a theocratic corporate fascism--which is exactly what they're working towards.

The obvious nature in the intentions of the economic elite in this country is so obvious, those who support it are either of the economic elite, think they can get in with the economic elite, are in a state of denial as to the reality of the economic progression of the country, believers of the propaganda of the right in what they push as "news", or are associatively sheeple that are associated for certain social ideals in which a party stands, are too stubborn to admit their misperception (pride / ego), or just too plain dumb to see beyond the lies.

I've been calling America a corporate oligarchy since '92.  It's evolved beyond that in what can now be loosely interpreted as an adoption of what I call a corporate feudalism; whereas the objective is total economic dependence of one's livelyhood being at the mercy of those who can see beyond their greed--even a fraction.  I wonder if I'll be Soylent green someday....hmmmmm.
#78 | 1125 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
ohwell_ wrote:
Regrettable Tweets

Yea, I saw a press clip of Rep. Eric Cantor stating that his state needed money to help with the earthquake damage.  Kind of contradicts his "role of the federal government" rhetoric doesn't it.  I loved the look on his face--it's like the thought of asking President Obama for FEMA help / funds was going to choke him to death....if it only would....

Hypocrite.....  Perhaps he should go to his corporate benefactors for the money--especially considering how much he's defended their tax cuts, loop-holes, etc.....
#79 | 1125 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

NorseHeathen wrote:
No, it's not......  When my wife's company got taken over, the new corporation raised our contribution to health insurance to triple our original contribution within a 6 week period.  Guess where that money was deducted in our budget--food and clothing.  The sad irony is that what you deem propaganda is most likely your own conscience not wanting to admit to yourself that these kinds of actions don't really happen, it's just people who want more for less.  FYI, the next quarter, they posted an increase to their profits....  So, they got richer, and we got phuqued.....

In Gov. Rick Perry's State of Texas, one of his former cabinet members is running for congress.  In a state where they're going to possibly lay off 100,000 teachers and increase class sizes to over 40 per room to meet a $4B budget deficit (despite having $6B available in a "rainy day fund"), the state with the lowest graduation rate in the nation, most minimum wage jobs, and highest economic disparity in the country--here's how the economic elite view the working class:

www.youtube.com/watch

As for not being able to think of one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing their benefits, how about Social Security?  Shall I continue?  The Republicans are the Guns, (Christian) God, and Corporations party: the latter supports the former to keep their support in furthering their economic objectives.  If the right had it's way, America would be a theocratic corporate fascism--which is exactly what they're working towards.

The obvious nature in the intentions of the economic elite in this country is so obvious, those who support it are either of the economic elite, think they can get in with the economic elite, are in a state of denial as to the reality of the economic progression of the country, believers of the propaganda of the right in what they push as "news", or are associatively sheeple that are associated for certain social ideals in which a party stands, are too stubborn to admit their misperception (pride / ego), or just too plain dumb to see beyond the lies.

I've been calling America a corporate oligarchy since '92.  It's evolved beyond that in what can now be loosely interpreted as an adoption of what I call a corporate feudalism; whereas the objective is total economic dependence of one's livelyhood being at the mercy of those who can see beyond their greed--even a fraction.  I wonder if I'll be Soylent green someday....hmmmmm.
 Soylent Green is people.  



#80 | 1125 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
NorseHeathen wrote:
No, it's not......  When my wife's company got taken over, the new corporation raised our contribution to health insurance to triple our original contribution within a 6 week period.  Guess where that money was deducted in our budget--food and clothing.  The sad irony is that what you deem propaganda is most likely your own conscience not wanting to admit to yourself that these kinds of actions don't really happen, it's just people who want more for less.  FYI, the next quarter, they posted an increase to their profits....  So, they got richer, and we got phuqued.....

In Gov. Rick Perry's State of Texas, one of his former cabinet members is running for congress.  In a state where they're going to possibly lay off 100,000 teachers and increase class sizes to over 40 per room to meet a $4B budget deficit (despite having $6B available in a "rainy day fund"), the state with the lowest graduation rate in the nation, most minimum wage jobs, and highest economic disparity in the country--here's how the economic elite view the working class:

www.youtube.com/watch

As for not being able to think of one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing their benefits, how about Social Security?  Shall I continue?  The Republicans are the Guns, (Christian) God, and Corporations party: the latter supports the former to keep their support in furthering their economic objectives.  If the right had it's way, America would be a theocratic corporate fascism--which is exactly what they're working towards.

The obvious nature in the intentions of the economic elite in this country is so obvious, those who support it are either of the economic elite, think they can get in with the economic elite, are in a state of denial as to the reality of the economic progression of the country, believers of the propaganda of the right in what they push as "news", or are associatively sheeple that are associated for certain social ideals in which a party stands, are too stubborn to admit their misperception (pride / ego), or just too plain dumb to see beyond the lies.

I've been calling America a corporate oligarchy since '92.  It's evolved beyond that in what can now be loosely interpreted as an adoption of what I call a corporate feudalism; whereas the objective is total economic dependence of one's livelyhood being at the mercy of those who can see beyond their greed--even a fraction.  I wonder if I'll be Soylent green someday....hmmmmm.
I know,   but if they can make a profit, I don't put it past any of these degenerate, poor excuses for human beings....
#81 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
My guess is that you aren't getting it because it just doesn't happen.  I can think of no one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing benefits.  The implication that one party wants to screw the unfortunate is nothing more than propaganda to try to  demonize an opposing party. 
 Um.. have you paid attention to the situations in Wisconsin and Ohio?  Its worked out so poorly for Republicans in those states that movement thankfully ended for the time being.
#82 | 1125 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
No, it's not......  When my wife's company got taken over, the new corporation raised our contribution to health insurance to triple our original contribution within a 6 week period.  Guess where that money was deducted in our budget--food and clothing.  The sad irony is that what you deem propaganda is most likely your own conscience not wanting to admit to yourself that these kinds of actions don't really happen, it's just people who want more for less.  FYI, the next quarter, they posted an increase to their profits....  So, they got richer, and we got phuqued.....

In Gov. Rick Perry's State of Texas, one of his former cabinet members is running for congress.  In a state where they're going to possibly lay off 100,000 teachers and increase class sizes to over 40 per room to meet a $4B budget deficit (despite having $6B available in a "rainy day fund"), the state with the lowest graduation rate in the nation, most minimum wage jobs, and highest economic disparity in the country--here's how the economic elite view the working class:

www.youtube.com/watch

As for not being able to think of one with any kind of voice who actually endorses people losing their benefits, how about Social Security?  Shall I continue?  The Republicans are the Guns, (Christian) God, and Corporations party: the latter supports the former to keep their support in furthering their economic objectives.  If the right had it's way, America would be a theocratic corporate fascism--which is exactly what they're working towards.

The obvious nature in the intentions of the economic elite in this country is so obvious, those who support it are either of the economic elite, think they can get in with the economic elite, are in a state of denial as to the reality of the economic progression of the country, believers of the propaganda of the right in what they push as "news", or are associatively sheeple that are associated for certain social ideals in which a party stands, are too stubborn to admit their misperception (pride / ego), or just too plain dumb to see beyond the lies.

I've been calling America a corporate oligarchy since '92.  It's evolved beyond that in what can now be loosely interpreted as an adoption of what I call a corporate feudalism; whereas the objective is total economic dependence of one's livelyhood being at the mercy of those who can see beyond their greed--even a fraction.  I wonder if I'll be Soylent green someday....hmmmmm.
What is really funny about what you wrote is that by changing only a few key words it is eerily similar to what a hard line righty would say as well.

Just watched the youtube link.  There is nothing elitist in the ad whatsoever.  It was an obvious dig at an opposing party.  Something many candidates from both sides do.

And yes, you do need to go on as I have never seen the personifacation of Social Security make a statement about how it wants people to lose benefits.  Try some kind of link to a candidate whose platform actually includes something like "The working class have too many benefits and we need to reduce that."  Or something like it.

I'm just not a fan of the extreme on either side.
#83 | 1125 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Um.. have you paid attention to the situations in Wisconsin and Ohio?  Its worked out so poorly for Republicans in those states that movement thankfully ended for the time being.
Did any of them campaign on the platform of people having too many benefits?  If so, please present the evidence. 

It's all campaign rhetoric.  Nothing more.  It's like when a candidate trying to get a bill through says something like, "I'm only trying to protect the children!"  Which is a great sound bite as it puts the speaker on the high ground for wanting to protect kids while at the same time implying that the other side only wants to HURT children.  It's a loaded comment.  Like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
#84 | 1125 days ago

Epic Failure (again) by Governor Valdimor

motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/florida-welfare-drug-test-costs

I think this  
#85 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Did any of them campaign on the platform of people having too many benefits?  If so, please present the evidence. 

It's all campaign rhetoric.  Nothing more.  It's like when a candidate trying to get a bill through says something like, "I'm only trying to protect the children!"  Which is a great sound bite as it puts the speaker on the high ground for wanting to protect kids while at the same time implying that the other side only wants to HURT children.  It's a loaded comment.  Like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
 Governor Walker specifically stated the public union benefits needed to "get into line" with everyone else's, essentially saying, yes, they receive too much.  

You do know you're allowed to use Google to avoid situations where you're easily proven wrong, right?
#86 | 1125 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
What is really funny about what you wrote is that by changing only a few key words it is eerily similar to what a hard line righty would say as well.

Just watched the youtube link.  There is nothing elitist in the ad whatsoever.  It was an obvious dig at an opposing party.  Something many candidates from both sides do.

And yes, you do need to go on as I have never seen the personifacation of Social Security make a statement about how it wants people to lose benefits.  Try some kind of link to a candidate whose platform actually includes something like "The working class have too many benefits and we need to reduce that."  Or something like it.

I'm just not a fan of the extreme on either side.
All you have to do is to watch the news to see the efforts that are being made to reduce the benefits of social security and other benefits in the public / private sector.  If I honestly thought you were interested in anything but wasting my time, I would gladly present the easily accessible information that backs up my statement.  Your spin-doctoring, and word-play can't change the facts of what is happening in our current government.

As for the link.....the "dig" wasn't against another party, it was against those of the lower economic classes and the redundant rhetoric you hear out of those like Ann Coulter, who actually used the term "parasites" in a news interview.  The fact that fair wages, and the ability to have health care, and education for families is considered "extremist" is a sad testament as to the ill nature of modern society.

As for the show me a platform or quote that says: "The working class have too many benefits and we need to reduce that".....don't be so absurd.  Attributed to the political atmosphere, quotes like that aren't generated, but the actions to do so are present.  Easy reference, the Verizon strike, or the legislation from the State of Wisconsin.  So please, quit tap-dancing with me.
#87 | 1125 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
kantwistaye wrote:
 Governor Walker specifically stated the public union benefits needed to "get into line" with everyone else's, essentially saying, yes, they receive too much.  

You do know you're allowed to use Google to avoid situations where you're easily proven wrong, right?
OK.  My mistake.  Here is a guy who was endorsing people losing benefits who he felt were already getting an obscene amount.  Kind of like an extreme lefty claiming certain people were making way too much money.

It's a subjective thing.  For all you or I know maybe he's right.  Or maybe the rest of WI is getting TERRIBLE benefits on average.  In either event, I think it is clear what he's trying to do anyway.  And it really has little to do with reducing the benefits of the populace.  It's all about union negotiation.  But, I made the comment and you showed me one case.  I think I should have been more specific.

Thank you.
#88 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Did any of them campaign on the platform of people having too many benefits?  If so, please present the evidence. 

It's all campaign rhetoric.  Nothing more.  It's like when a candidate trying to get a bill through says something like, "I'm only trying to protect the children!"  Which is a great sound bite as it puts the speaker on the high ground for wanting to protect kids while at the same time implying that the other side only wants to HURT children.  It's a loaded comment.  Like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Of course no politician who has any hope of winning is going to campaign on a platform like that.  And do what?  Alienate themselves from thousands or millions of potential voters?  
This is why I've been saying for years now that for as much as I despise most Republican politicians, I give them an amazing amount of credit for being able to take a party that, in it's policies/beliefs/legislative action, caters to the upper echelon while alienating the middle and lower class, they've managed to pull one hell of a ruse on the American public.  They've managed to come across as the choice party for the working-class American (which used to be a vastly Democratic demographic) by using lies, double-talk, "morality" (read: religion, most times), and fear-mongering.  Politically brilliant.
Good bye.  
#89 | 1125 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
All you have to do is to watch the news to see the efforts that are being made to reduce the benefits of social security and other benefits in the public / private sector.  If I honestly thought you were interested in anything but wasting my time, I would gladly present the easily accessible information that backs up my statement.  Your spin-doctoring, and word-play can't change the facts of what is happening in our current government.

As for the link.....the "dig" wasn't against another party, it was against those of the lower economic classes and the redundant rhetoric you hear out of those like Ann Coulter, who actually used the term "parasites" in a news interview.  The fact that fair wages, and the ability to have health care, and education for families is considered "extremist" is a sad testament as to the ill nature of modern society.

As for the show me a platform or quote that says: "The working class have too many benefits and we need to reduce that".....don't be so absurd.  Attributed to the political atmosphere, quotes like that aren't generated, but the actions to do so are present.  Easy reference, the Verizon strike, or the legislation from the State of Wisconsin.  So please, quit tap-dancing with me.
Sorry but I am looking for a platform or quote.  Actions are interpreted by certain sides in a way that they want to see.

Regarding the link...  It was absolutely nothing more than a dig at the opposing party.  There was nothing elitist about it unless one is obsessed with finding "elitism" everywhere even where it does not exist .

Perhaps you can explain to me how a guy who speaks about how hard it is to work with donkeys can be deemed elitist?  And in case the viewer still didn't get it, he goes on to say how easy it is to work with elephants.  It doesn't take an advanced degree to see what the guys point is.
#90 | 1125 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Of course no politician who has any hope of winning is going to campaign on a platform like that.  And do what?  Alienate themselves from thousands or millions of potential voters?  
This is why I've been saying for years now that for as much as I despise most Republican politicians, I give them an amazing amount of credit for being able to take a party that, in it's policies/beliefs/legislative action, caters to the upper echelon while alienating the middle and lower class, they've managed to pull one hell of a ruse on the American public.  They've managed to come across as the choice party for the working-class American (which used to be a vastly Democratic demographic) by using lies, double-talk, "morality" (read: religion, most times), and fear-mongering.  Politically brilliant.
Once again...  This kind of comment is completely hilarious.  I have heard righties say that exact same thing about the Dems.  Almost word for word.   Just change "republican" to "democrat".  And "upper echelon" to "themselves".
#91 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Once again...  This kind of comment is completely hilarious.  I have heard righties say that exact same thing about the Dems.  Almost word for word.   Just change "republican" to "democrat".  And "upper echelon" to "themselves".
Yes, however, politicians are supposed to cater to their constituents.  Catering to the upper 1% is hardly "representing" your people, which is, you know, their JOB.  
Catering to the lower/middle class people, who are in the vast majority in the country (by sheer numbers), is what's supposed to be happening. 
Good bye.  
#92 | 1125 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Yes, however, politicians are supposed to cater to their constituents.  Catering to the upper 1% is hardly "representing" your people, which is, you know, their JOB.  
Catering to the lower/middle class people, who are in the vast majority in the country (by sheer numbers), is what's supposed to be happening. 
What politicians are supposed to do and what they actually do are completely different things.  I would argue that they aren't supposed to "cater" to the constituents but rather "represent" them.  Fairly in an ideal world.  But you and I both know this is not an ideal world.  "Catering" to me implies a "gimmie gimmie gimmie for free" kind of mentality. 

You know who politicians to cater to?  Themselves and only themselves.  If they appear to be doing anything for anyone else it is only because it serves their own interests.  Both parties play that game to the hilt.  It's a very cynical view but I have grown that way after years of watching the game of politics.
#93 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
What politicians are supposed to do and what they actually do are completely different things.  I would argue that they aren't supposed to "cater" to the constituents but rather "represent" them.  Fairly in an ideal world.  But you and I both know this is not an ideal world.  "Catering" to me implies a "gimmie gimmie gimmie for free" kind of mentality. 

You know who politicians to cater to?  Themselves and only themselves.  If they appear to be doing anything for anyone else it is only because it serves their own interests.  Both parties play that game to the hilt.  It's a very cynical view but I have grown that way after years of watching the game of politics.
 I agree, mostly, that politicians cater to themselves.  However, since it's NOT an ideal world, should we not then be focusing on the "lesser of two evils"?  

Politician A is attempting to put legislation through that would benefit a majority of his/her constituents.
Politician B is attempting to put legislation through that would benefit a very small minority of his/her constituents.
Both have self-serving intentions behind their actions.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that, with all other factors being equal, that the politician whose legislation would benefit a larger number of the people he/she represents would be the smarter choice FOR his/her constituents? 
Good bye.  
#94 | 1125 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
janet011685 wrote:
 I agree, mostly, that politicians cater to themselves.  However, since it's NOT an ideal world, should we not then be focusing on the "lesser of two evils"?  

Politician A is attempting to put legislation through that would benefit a majority of his/her constituents.
Politician B is attempting to put legislation through that would benefit a very small minority of his/her constituents.
Both have self-serving intentions behind their actions.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that, with all other factors being equal, that the politician whose legislation would benefit a larger number of the people he/she represents would be the smarter choice FOR his/her constituents? 
From a very selfish standpoint of those in the district who will benefit, yes.

But elected officials (I know I know) are supposed to be above that and do what is right.  If it is not in the best interest of the state or country for their district to get a bunch of perks...  That elected official shouldn't be pushing such legislation to begin with.  The only reason they are is to get re-elected.  It is the rare breed of politician who does what he/she deems to be the right or best thing even if it doesn't benefit their own district in some way.  It's looking out for the greater good.  I harken back to the many congressmen who endorsed closing military bases all over....   EXCEPT the "essential" one that happens be in their own district.
#95 | 1125 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
Sorry but I am looking for a platform or quote.  Actions are interpreted by certain sides in a way that they want to see.

Regarding the link...  It was absolutely nothing more than a dig at the opposing party.  There was nothing elitist about it unless one is obsessed with finding "elitism" everywhere even where it does not exist .

Perhaps you can explain to me how a guy who speaks about how hard it is to work with donkeys can be deemed elitist?  And in case the viewer still didn't get it, he goes on to say how easy it is to work with elephants.  It doesn't take an advanced degree to see what the guys point is.
Is this what you've had to relegate yourself too--being obtuse?

I've noticed this kind of lawyering on many forums from conservatives; the actions of the body are manipulated to individual considerations only (even if it is supported by the vast majority, if not whole, group), and disassociation from actions despite the obvious intent and focus.

You're usually too intelligent for this kind of tactic.  It's sad that you feel you must relegate yourself to such as the political actions of the right are otherwise indefensible.
#96 | 1125 days ago

 I see a lot of quotes, so I'm posting a fav of mine (and most teachers).

“Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation.”
John F. Kennedy

Becky needs to run.  
#97 | 1124 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Is this what you've had to relegate yourself too--being obtuse?

I've noticed this kind of lawyering on many forums from conservatives; the actions of the body are manipulated to individual considerations only (even if it is supported by the vast majority, if not whole, group), and disassociation from actions despite the obvious intent and focus.

You're usually too intelligent for this kind of tactic.  It's sad that you feel you must relegate yourself to such as the political actions of the right are otherwise indefensible.
I think the only thing that can be said in response to that is....   WTF?????
#98 | 1124 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
In short, we are now all under cyber-survelliance, and it's ILLEGAL for us to be TOLD whether or not we are! .... just saying wtf?

In other news: The Illegal Immigrant Award goes to hurricane Irene for trying to sneak into the USA with intent of mass distruction. GOP announces plans to build a wall.
I think this  
#99 | 1124 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Wow.....something to which I finally agree with the Tea Party:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/steve-chabot-tea-party-cameras-town-halls_n_936465.html


In addition, as it seems it is always inevitable, the totalitarian myth that America was created as a Christian nation was brought forth again.  Hence, here's a link with the religious affiliations of the American Founders:
candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm
You will observe that not all were Christians, and there are some to which no affiliation could be attributed.  I fully support religious freedom, and will defend such as I would any other part of the Bill of Rights.  However, America was founded as a nation with religious freedom--not a Christian designation, and to say otherwise is idiotic and ignorant.
#100 | 1121 days ago

Re:  Rick Perry statement that "Social Security is a ponzi scheme"

social security ponzi scheme venn diagram
I think this  
#101 | 1120 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
First, God tells her to work for the IRS, now God is a Tea Party supporter.....

www.youtube.com/watch

Republicans have already tried to spin this into, "she was just joking"; but what kind of person would joke about national disasters that killed some people (of whom still haven't been buried)?  There's a longer video of her on YouTube, but I have difficulty stomaching the sanctimonious Christian "I told you so" laughter.  I've been a part of congregations that laugh at peoples hardships, and left immediately afterward.  This was no joke--any who believe such are either puppets, idiots, or blind pundits.

Here was my Facebook commentary: "The irony here is she says DC needs to listen to the American people--just the people Tea Party representatives have been ignoring since taking office. OH, that's right--the Supreme Court of the U.S. said that corporations are people....now I understand what she means."  Yes, just a bit of sarcasm.
#102 | 1120 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

NorseHeathen wrote:
First, God tells her to work for the IRS, now God is a Tea Party supporter.....

www.youtube.com/watch

Republicans have already tried to spin this into, "she was just joking"; but what kind of person would joke about national disasters that killed some people (of whom still haven't been buried)?  There's a longer video of her on YouTube, but I have difficulty stomaching the sanctimonious Christian "I told you so" laughter.  I've been a part of congregations that laugh at peoples hardships, and left immediately afterward.  This was no joke--any who believe such are either puppets, idiots, or blind pundits.

Here was my Facebook commentary: "The irony here is she says DC needs to listen to the American people--just the people Tea Party representatives have been ignoring since taking office. OH, that's right--the Supreme Court of the U.S. said that corporations are people....now I understand what she means."  Yes, just a bit of sarcasm.
 She's ignorant, and that statement that she made should tell anyone just how ignorant she really is. I have no doubts that she has messed up my plans for her to win the nomination. 
#103 | 1120 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 She's ignorant, and that statement that she made should tell anyone just how ignorant she really is. I have no doubts that she has messed up my plans for her to win the nomination. 
Via Droid so I can't spell check. Mrs. Bachman is also Not opposed to drilling in the Everglades. Idiot
I think this  
#104 | 1120 days ago

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/bachmann-calls-drilling-everglades

I really hate this clueless b*tch
I think this  
#105 | 1119 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
Well east coast, the House of Representatives is gearing up  to play games with disaster relief after an earthquake, a hurricane that touched the entire eastern sea-board, and a potentially new hurricane "Katija" (Caught-eeya) brewing in the southeastern seas.  It is my sincere hope that funding is RENEWED for the victims in Joplin, MO., and for all disaster victims on the east coast; what ever happened to "united we stand".....
#106 | 1119 days ago

The New Government Symbol
                                                       condom.jpg
The government today announced that it is changing its symbol from an Eagle to a CONDOM, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance.... A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed!
Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that!
I think this  
#107 | 1119 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
The New Government Symbol
                                                       condom.jpg
The government today announced that it is changing its symbol from an Eagle to a CONDOM, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance.... A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed!
Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that!
I had heard that the us symbol should be a pig with all the self interests (and those demanding free gimmies) suckling at the teats. 
#108 | 1119 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
I had heard that the us symbol should be a pig with all the self interests (and those demanding free gimmies) suckling at the teats. 
For those who use the system for that which it was not intended, or take advantage of the system, I definitely agree.
#109 | 1119 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I had heard that the us symbol should be a pig with all the self interests (and those demanding free gimmies) suckling at the teats. 
The Ying and the Yang
I think this  
#110 | 1119 days ago

I wasn't going to comment on the Obama jobs speech kerfuffle that popped up today (for those that didn't hear, Obama scheduled his jobs speech in a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 7, the same night as a GOP presidential debate, Boehner balked), because I figured it was one of those thing that only Beltway insiders gave a crap about it. I was glad to see Obama play a little hardball with the Republicans...

Until he caved on the date, as is now being reported. The speech will be Sept. 8 now (same time as the NFL opener, btw). I don't get why he can't give to the American people and not in a Joint Session, and with this cave,  I'm not exactly confident his plan is going to be very big.

*sigh*
#111 | 1118 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
I wasn't going to comment on the Obama jobs speech kerfuffle that popped up today (for those that didn't hear, Obama scheduled his jobs speech in a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 7, the same night as a GOP presidential debate, Boehner balked), because I figured it was one of those thing that only Beltway insiders gave a crap about it. I was glad to see Obama play a little hardball with the Republicans...

Until he caved on the date, as is now being reported. The speech will be Sept. 8 now (same time as the NFL opener, btw). I don't get why he can't give to the American people and not in a Joint Session, and with this cave,  I'm not exactly confident his plan is going to be very big.

*sigh*
 When he announced the date I was pumped that he finally had the balls to do something right and lead (and allow the alternative to his plans be shown immediately after).  Now... yeah, we're still f***ed.
#112 | 1118 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Not necessarily.....  Considering there's already a foundation for a campaign strategy being played, one thing I can envision is President Obama in a debate stating the means upon which he tried to facilitate the oppositional party in every respect, yet when it came down to actually getting legislation passed that would benefit the nation with jobs, disaster relief, or benevolent budget considerations, received nothing but opposition with no regard for the importance of the issue; those who support opposition at any cost (the vast minority of Americans would cheer such, but the vast majority of voters would be reminded of how their government left them to the wolves during their time of need--and whom it was that slammed the door shut.

Then again, I tend to think in optimistic perspective the majority of the time;in which Mike and Eric could be right on the mark.  In which case, we're phuqued.....LOL!
#113 | 1118 days ago

I just woke up. I was supposed to be at the courthouse this a.m. at 7 to join the other people in my group
to stand up against the government.  I suck at this anarchy thing.
I think this  
#114 | 1118 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Eh, I don't do the anarchy thing....nor am I a revolutionary.

I consider myself an "social evolutionist" 

Here's a song for you Laurel: www.youtube.com/watch
#115 | 1118 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Just heard that the U.S. ranks #41 in the world with regard to infant mortality.

Ranked at #28 last year, the U.S. is now tied with Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Croatia.

Considering we're at the top of the big "G-20", America's opposition to health care is pathetic.
#116 | 1118 days ago

I don't think America is opposed to health care at all.  I think America is opposed to CRAPPY health care.  And they are certainly opposed to anything that will make health care worse.
#117 | 1118 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Just a general statement after watching the news.....

Denying people health care because they don't have the money to pay for it is like not having any at all.  That's one thing about the formation of Cascadia, no human health services related industry will be able to be profit motivated.

Yet, presidential contenders are back on the band-wagon with the 50% of people don't pay taxes....la, la. la....

Considering America is an economic "super-power", a wise person would see that the error of the system lies in why such a rich country has half of their population that us unable to pay such tax.  Phrases such as "soaking the rich" upon reflection is becoming like a school-yard retort as anyone that sees the degrading funding of necessary programs, replaced with service charges is the equivalent to a crow picking the meat from one's bones.
#118 | 1117 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Not necessarily.....  Considering there's already a foundation for a campaign strategy being played, one thing I can envision is President Obama in a debate stating the means upon which he tried to facilitate the oppositional party in every respect, yet when it came down to actually getting legislation passed that would benefit the nation with jobs, disaster relief, or benevolent budget considerations, received nothing but opposition with no regard for the importance of the issue; those who support opposition at any cost (the vast minority of Americans would cheer such, but the vast majority of voters would be reminded of how their government left them to the wolves during their time of need--and whom it was that slammed the door shut.

Then again, I tend to think in optimistic perspective the majority of the time;in which Mike and Eric could be right on the mark.  In which case, we're phuqued.....LOL!
 Possibly.. all I saw yesterday was a man terrified of confrontation on any policy.  Then again, he's already got my vote locked up so he doesn't have to appease me. 
#119 | 1117 days ago

Anyone?  Anyone?
http://motherjones.com/about/social-media-intern
I think this  
#120 | 1117 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ohwell_ wrote: Very cool!
#121 | 1112 days ago

Is anyone going to subject themselves to the GOP debate tonight? If so, what would you like to see happen? If I get bored enough (and it keeps raining at the US Open) I might catch a few minutes, until I can no longer stand it. While I would like to see Bachmann do to Perry what she did to Pawlenty, I'm guessing Perry is able to skate through and gets effusively praised by the "liberal media" for exceeding expectations.

It would be a fine bit of absurdest humor if it weren't for the increasingly likely and terrifying proposition that this shyster is going to be the next President.
#122 | 1112 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Ey wahchin et now....... An sinse thinken dummer, I kan unterstant beterr.....
#123 | 1112 days ago

   pretty much somes up the whole enchilada.
I should have taken notes.  Holy crap. 

I think this  
#124 | 1111 days ago

All those televised debates are worthless.  Every candidate from every party not only dumbs things down but they have pat responses to questions they know are coming.  Those credited with the better performance are often the ones who say nothing the best.
#125 | 1111 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

For all those candidates that were giving the memory of Ronald Reagan's philosophies deified respect, they forgot to actually remember what the man stood for, and not just use his name to suit their own desires:

www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#letter2

Here's an overview of the first letter to Congressional Leaders, 21MAY1981, identifying his three principles with regard to the Social Security Program:

--First, this nation must preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund and the basic benefit structure that protects older Americans.

--Second, we must hold down the tax burden on the workers who support Social Security.

--Finally, we must eliminate all abuses in the system that can rob the elderly of their rightful legacy.

#126 | 1111 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

I can't remember who said it, but one of the commentators stated something to the effect that if Ronald Reagan would have been involved in the debate, he would have been the flaming liberal of the debaters....
#127 | 1111 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
Here's the text of Obama's speech tonight. I'm still reading it and mulling it over. Thoughts later.
#128 | 1111 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
I can't remember who said it, but one of the commentators stated something to the effect that if Ronald Reagan would have been involved in the debate, he would have been the flaming liberal of the debaters....
Time can do that.  Many of today's liberal Democrats like to use JFK for the same ends as Republicans use Reagan.  Yet if JFK were around today many of his policies would be considered conservative.
#129 | 1111 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
Time can do that.  Many of today's liberal Democrats like to use JFK for the same ends as Republicans use Reagan.  Yet if JFK were around today many of his policies would be considered conservative.
Some definitely would......but I dare not say near as "conservative" as the current movement.....
#130 | 1110 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Some definitely would......but I dare not say near as "conservative" as the current movement.....
I suppose that depends on what you feel the "current movement" is.  If you refer to the Tea Party nutballs, they are by no means the rank and file of the conservative movement the media loves to convey them as.
#131 | 1110 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
I suppose that depends on what you feel the "current movement" is.  If you refer to the Tea Party nutballs, they are by no means the rank and file of the conservative movement the media loves to convey them as.
Really?!?  Is that why after taking negotiations to the caucus after negotiations always seem to end with a "we're not budging" message attached.  C'mon....even on Fox news tonight, they're already saying there's no way the parts of the Presidents speech that the Republicans have already turned down in other forms are going to pass--not even with additional concessionary measures, and no matter if they were initially endorsed by past Republican efforts.....

We'll see......but I'm not holding my breath that this is going to be any different than the efforts regarding the previous discussions, albeit with a different spin.  As of now, time will tell.
#132 | 1110 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Really?!?  Is that why after taking negotiations to the caucus after negotiations always seem to end with a "we're not budging" message attached.  C'mon....even on Fox news tonight, they're already saying there's no way the parts of the Presidents speech that the Republicans have already turned down in other forms are going to pass--not even with additional concessionary measures, and no matter if they were initially endorsed by past Republican efforts.....

We'll see......but I'm not holding my breath that this is going to be any different than the efforts regarding the previous discussions, albeit with a different spin.  As of now, time will tell.
None of that  means the albeit very noisy Tea Party types constitute the bulk of those who tend to lean to the right in this country to begin with.

The fact is, the Tea Party movement started out in a very liberal way.  Grass roots gatherings spreading through word of mouth with the idea that people's taxes were being used highly inefficiently.  When it started, the mainstream media (CNN, over the air networks and yes, even FOX) all but ignored them.  For two years most TV news viewing Americans had no idea the movement even existed.  When it did get so big TV felt it was difficult to ignore was when the movement took an even harder right turn towards crazy town thanks to some media savvy extremists.   And that just fueled their fire.  This is when the bulk of the original organizers and participants bailed out.

Being noisy will garner attention but it doesn't make you mainstream.
#133 | 1110 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Considering the focus they've garnered in the past 2 years (in the beginning doesn't matter now, does it), and the open support they get from Fox"News", your post is moot.
#134 | 1110 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
On the contrary...  Your point that the Tea Party represents a significant portion of conservative leaning Americans is moot.   Edit:  My mistake.  Not moot.  Just incorrect.  Apologies.

PS...  CNN gives the current Tea Party just as much "support" as FOX does just by merely mentioning them on air.
#135 | 1110 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
On the contrary...  Your point that the Tea Party represents a significant portion of conservative leaning Americans is moot.   Edit:  My mistake.  Not moot.  Just incorrect.  Apologies.

PS...  CNN gives the current Tea Party just as much "support" as FOX does just by merely mentioning them on air.
Well, I guess I should thank you for alieviating any further need to address this issue.  All anyone has to do is to watch Fox for an hour to hear the redundant resonations of Tea Party support and rationalizations to see for themselves.

What puzzles me is that you're an educated person; why resort to tactics of denial, minimization, and misrepresentation.  Either you're doing it on purpose, or you haven't been paying attention over the past year (plus) and don't have a clue.
#136 | 1110 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Well, I guess I should thank you for alieviating any further need to address this issue.  All anyone has to do is to watch Fox for an hour to hear the redundant resonations of Tea Party support and rationalizations to see for themselves.

What puzzles me is that you're an educated person; why resort to tactics of denial, minimization, and misrepresentation.  Either you're doing it on purpose, or you haven't been paying attention over the past year (plus) and don't have a clue.
You can get the same thing by watching CNN or NBC or a myriad of other national news outlets.  I didn't think how they rationalize themselves matters here.  My point was that they do not represent the the majority of conservative leaning Americans any more than good old fashioned protesters represent the majority of liberal leaning Americans.  Period.  Continued belief that they do is a sign of believing what one wishes were the case, having a personal agenda or just plain ignorance.

I am at a loss regarding "tactics" you accuse me of.  As a general rule I do not resort to flat out denials, misrepresentations or minimization.  In fact, there are others here who do that on a very regular basis.  Far more often than myself.  It's possible you let those slide only because you agree with the comment or are confusing me for someone else I suppose...  If not, it would be very helpful if it were pointed out where those said "tactics" were used by me rather than just accusing me of them with nothing to back it up.
#137 | 1110 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

No, Fox is basically the Tea Party "rah-rah" channel.

As for the rest, I'm actually comfortable with letting those that read the forum form their own impressions.  This conversations become boring.  Time to move on....
#138 | 1110 days ago

All the networks seem to be known for their particular slant on things.  Don't pretend your preferred provider(s) is/are immune.  Either you're doing it on purpose, or you haven't been paying attention over the past year (plus) and don't have a clue.  To use your own words...

Nice way to get out of having to actually support your attacks, BTW.  I think that speaks for itself.  You have the makings of a great lawyer or politician.
#139 | 1109 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

This thread speaks for itself.....  LOL!
#140 | 1109 days ago

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
#141 | 1109 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
This thread speaks for itself.....  LOL!
On that we can agree....
#142 | 1106 days ago

OK, so Obama's jobs bill is pretty good given the circumstances. One aspect I especially like is the tax break for hiring someone that's been unemployed for 6 months or more. Is it part political? Of course, especially his proposed offsets. However, it's nice seeing him show some fire and turn "Pass The Bill" into a catchphrase. The really whiny liberals will complain if he signs a bill that has only part of his ideas, but anything that can help the economic situation has to be signed. It would be idiocy to veto part of the bill because he can't get all of it, especially when there's no way he'll get all of it.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren has officially entered the Massachusetts Senate race against Scott Brown. The next Lib-tard poll (when am I supposed to create the next one anyway?) will touch on the Senate, just FYI.

Also, Wonkblog!
#143 | 1106 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Well, considering the tone of the right-wing primaries, and the rhetoric coming out of DC, the essence of "shared sacrifice" is going to come in the form of a vote in the 2012 elections.  People will suffer until President Obama is re-elected and the House of Representatives is once again in the hands that "we the people" means actual people with heart-beats, and not the SCOTUS rendering of last year--it was the greatest disgrace of our modern era from the sense of judicial politicism.

On another interesting note, tea-baggers filibustered a bill to provide disaster relief to citizens until senior Republicans told their caucus members to quit playing politics with peoples lives.  Even then, 38 voted against the measure which now heads to the *HOR*.
#144 | 1105 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Here's a list of those who voted against the measure:
Source: U.S. Senate Legislation and Records www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm
Article: thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/13/317676/despite-saying-americas-priorities-should-come-first-senate-gop-blocks-emergency-disaster-relief/

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
#145 | 1105 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
OK, so Obama's jobs bill is pretty good given the circumstances. One aspect I especially like is the tax break for hiring someone that's been unemployed for 6 months or more. Is it part political? Of course, especially his proposed offsets. However, it's nice seeing him show some fire and turn "Pass The Bill" into a catchphrase. The really whiny liberals will complain if he signs a bill that has only part of his ideas, but anything that can help the economic situation has to be signed. It would be idiocy to veto part of the bill because he can't get all of it, especially when there's no way he'll get all of it.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren has officially entered the Massachusetts Senate race against Scott Brown. The next Lib-tard poll (when am I supposed to create the next one anyway?) will touch on the Senate, just FYI.

Also, Wonkblog!
As often as you'd like.  If something's going on that's worthwhile for us to talk about, make the poll.
Good bye.  
#146 | 1105 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Well, considering the tone of the right-wing primaries, and the rhetoric coming out of DC, the essence of "shared sacrifice" is going to come in the form of a vote in the 2012 elections.  People will suffer until President Obama is re-elected and the House of Representatives is once again in the hands that "we the people" means actual people with heart-beats, and not the SCOTUS rendering of last year--it was the greatest disgrace of our modern era from the sense of judicial politicism.

On another interesting note, tea-baggers filibustered a bill to provide disaster relief to citizens until senior Republicans told their caucus members to quit playing politics with peoples lives.  Even then, 38 voted against the measure which now heads to the *HOR*.
I'm not sure who those senior Republicans were, since their entire leadership (McConnell, Kyl, Alexander, Thune, etc.) still voted to filibuster.
#147 | 1105 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

Eric_ wrote:
OK, so Obama's jobs bill is pretty good given the circumstances. One aspect I especially like is the tax break for hiring someone that's been unemployed for 6 months or more. Is it part political? Of course, especially his proposed offsets. However, it's nice seeing him show some fire and turn "Pass The Bill" into a catchphrase. The really whiny liberals will complain if he signs a bill that has only part of his ideas, but anything that can help the economic situation has to be signed. It would be idiocy to veto part of the bill because he can't get all of it, especially when there's no way he'll get all of it.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren has officially entered the Massachusetts Senate race against Scott Brown. The next Lib-tard poll (when am I supposed to create the next one anyway?) will touch on the Senate, just FYI.

Also, Wonkblog!
When you feel like it, or when Janet says HEY!  time for a lib tard poll cause i'm pissed. 
#148 | 1105 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Eric_ wrote:
I'm not sure who those senior Republicans were, since their entire leadership (McConnell, Kyl, Alexander, Thune, etc.) still voted to filibuster.
Hmmmmm.........  I was looking for the article I read yesterday, but can't find it.  So, either I read it wrong and passed on bad info, or the source I referenced saw a contradiction between the individuals words and vote and removed the article.  Though it is more likely I read it wrong.  I want to say the quote came from Jim Demint (who didn't vote at all), but I honestly can't be sure.

So, unless I can find it to vindicate myself, my apologies for misrepresenting the voting progression.
#149 | 1105 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
OK, so Obama's jobs bill is pretty good given the circumstances. One aspect I especially like is the tax break for hiring someone that's been unemployed for 6 months or more. Is it part political? Of course, especially his proposed offsets. However, it's nice seeing him show some fire and turn "Pass The Bill" into a catchphrase. The really whiny liberals will complain if he signs a bill that has only part of his ideas, but anything that can help the economic situation has to be signed. It would be idiocy to veto part of the bill because he can't get all of it, especially when there's no way he'll get all of it.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren has officially entered the Massachusetts Senate race against Scott Brown. The next Lib-tard poll (when am I supposed to create the next one anyway?) will touch on the Senate, just FYI.

Also, Wonkblog!
As far as the tax break goes, I  was hired for a job, along with 20 other folks during a similar tax incentive period.
None of us ever got more than 10 hours a week, however, do the math.  Employer made out like a bandit.
I think this  
#150 | 1105 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
As far as the tax break goes, I  was hired for a job, along with 20 other folks during a similar tax incentive period.
None of us ever got more than 10 hours a week, however, do the math.  Employer made out like a bandit.
I'm sorry it was a bust for you. That'll make me reconsider my position on that. Thanks for letting me know, because these are kinds of stories I need to hear. Let's face it, I'm 26, have been out of college for three years, and went straight from school to a government job in the DC bubble (and in the bubble with the bubble that is DoD). This is mostly theoretical for me, so anything concrete from the "real world" is much appreciated. Too bad our politicians don't have the same attitude.

(That paragraph sounds more condescending than it's intended to be. Sorry about that.)
#151 | 1105 days ago

In other news, well, it hasn't been a good week for Democrats.

First, both of last night's special elections were disasters. NV-02 was Republican favored regardless, but getting crushed by 20 isn't good. NY-09 was a strange one with odd circumstances, but losing that seat does not reflect well on Obama and the Dems. These being special elections though, it's hard to project anything either way.

Second, there's this Solyndra mess. Now, this loan guarantee is only 1.3% of the total amount of guarantees awarded, so in a vacuum, having one failure isn't that a big deal. It's just the cost of doing this kind of R&D work. However, it definitely appears that the White House rushed things out, which while that's not necessarily evidence of cronyism, it is most certainly bad government and bad business. This will quickly be a conservative talking point. I've already seen one Q'er complain about that in that "Organizations You Hate" thread (which is to me is just a place for our conservative friends to bitch about how they hate government).

Finally, you have the latest episode of the GOP trying to game the election, right in my ex-home state of Pennsylvania. Now much to say here except that while it's perfectly legal, it's also a brazen attempt at gaming the system to improve their prospects in the presidential election. Political Wire rightly called it gerrymandering. That's bad enough with the Congressional districts. We definitely don't want *either* side trying to pull this crap with the presidential election.
#152 | 1105 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
Not condescending at all, them's the facts...........it's all good.

I entered a contest on Gov.Scot'ts Resident Governor of my Great State of Florida  website for a chance to hang out with him and attend the straw poll.    I want to win so I can kick him in the gonads.  This week, he turned down Federal dollars for Planned Parenthood and birth control centers, but ACCEPTED
money earmarked for abstinence education.    Insert heavy sigh here.........

Google his sorry a**.      He is Valdimor.

In other news from around the country..sn update from the formerly Great State of Michigan,  Union busting continues.......My cousin Lisa sent me this: www.mea.org/bill-prohibit-payroll-dues-deduction-fast-track          and GO LIONS   
I think this  
#153 | 1104 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Not condescending at all, them's the facts...........it's all good.

I entered a contest on Gov.Scot'ts Resident Governor of my Great State of Florida  website for a chance to hang out with him and attend the straw poll.    I want to win so I can kick him in the gonads.  This week, he turned down Federal dollars for Planned Parenthood and birth control centers, but ACCEPTED
money earmarked for abstinence education.    Insert heavy sigh here.........

Google his sorry a**.      He is Valdimor.

In other news from around the country..sn update from the formerly Great State of Michigan,  Union busting continues.......My cousin Lisa sent me this: www.mea.org/bill-prohibit-payroll-dues-deduction-fast-track          and GO LIONS   
The Michigan matter is insane.  Unions are going to collect their dues.  Making it NOT a payroll deduction just makes it more difficult for the members.

Out here in California however, there is a drive to get signatures for a ballot initiative to essentially enforce what is already an unenforced national law.  It will require unions to get written permission from members before spending their dues money on any political cause.  Funny, I thought this was already national law.  Just google the 1988 Supreme court case Communication Workers vs. Beck.
Here is one of the links summing it up...

IMHO...  It is completely proper to collect dues from members so the unions can negociate and enforce contracts and agreements.  It is when the unions step beyond that role is where I take issues with them.  Like using portions of my dues to endorse candidates or ballot initiives I may not wish to give money to.
#154 | 1104 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
The Michigan matter is insane.  Unions are going to collect their dues.  Making it NOT a payroll deduction just makes it more difficult for the members.

Out here in California however, there is a drive to get signatures for a ballot initiative to essentially enforce what is already an unenforced national law.  It will require unions to get written permission from members before spending their dues money on any political cause.  Funny, I thought this was already national law.  Just google the 1988 Supreme court case Communication Workers vs. Beck.
Here is one of the links summing it up...

IMHO...  It is completely proper to collect dues from members so the unions can negociate and enforce contracts and agreements.  It is when the unions step beyond that role is where I take issues with them.  Like using portions of my dues to endorse candidates or ballot initiives I may not wish to give money to.
I'll support that philosophy as soon as corporate donations to campaigns are distributed through a consensus of all the workers in a corporation.  I would LOVE to see just how much of the millions of dollars would go to "non-conservative", Libertarian, or even Green Party campaigns in such a case.
#155 | 1104 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
NorseHeathen wrote:
I'll support that philosophy as soon as corporate donations to campaigns are distributed through a consensus of all the workers in a corporation.  I would LOVE to see just how much of the millions of dollars would go to "non-conservative", Libertarian, or even Green Party campaigns in such a case.
I have a hard time ever seeing that happening.  I do not think there could ever be a fair way for that, but I do see where someone in a union not wanting a union to support any candidate.  I do not think I would like someone speaking for me in that instance. 
#156 | 1104 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

cubsgirl2 wrote:
I have a hard time ever seeing that happening.  I do not think there could ever be a fair way for that, but I do see where someone in a union not wanting a union to support any candidate.  I do not think I would like someone speaking for me in that instance. 
All contributions to be submitted to a general fund within a state or federal election commission, and distributed evenly between the four political parties achieving the highest vote totals from the previous election for the office in question.  With such funds being divided 4 ways, it guarantees that new issues and perspectives are presented so issues don't stagnate around the status quo; if there's an independent candidate that qualifies, they receive the funding in lieu of a political party's candidate if the decide to run again.  Any "holes" in the ballot will be filled by the next qualified party to be represented, or if only 3 or 2 candidates, the funds to be distributed accordingly.  Such would be measured with strict accounting and verification.

The fact is, money for political races would suddenly disappear as there would be no "direct support" for later favours, extortion, or the essence of bribery that the current system facilitates.
#157 | 1104 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

NorseHeathen wrote:
All contributions to be submitted to a general fund within a state or federal election commission, and distributed evenly between the four political parties achieving the highest vote totals from the previous election for the office in question.  With such funds being divided 4 ways, it guarantees that new issues and perspectives are presented so issues don't stagnate around the status quo; if there's an independent candidate that qualifies, they receive the funding in lieu of a political party's candidate if the decide to run again.  Any "holes" in the ballot will be filled by the next qualified party to be represented, or if only 3 or 2 candidates, the funds to be distributed accordingly.  Such would be measured with strict accounting and verification.

The fact is, money for political races would suddenly disappear as there would be no "direct support" for later favours, extortion, or the essence of bribery that the current system facilitates.
 ok.  so what needs to be done? 
#158 | 1104 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Well......unless we can get a national referendum passed--which would be overturned by the Supreme Court attributed to the direct language in the Constitution, the only way to get such a law changed would either to be elect a whole new legislature with some integrity, or.........a Supreme Court with judicial integrity to identify a legal challenge as to the obvious nature of how these contributions are directed in a partisan manner (hence, the nature of extortion/bribery)

Then again, the Supreme Court just stated that an non-living object (corporation) is a person so I'm not holding my breath.
#159 | 1104 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

das3cr wrote:
That may be true. But we should have done a lot better about who we chose to succeed him. We obviously failed in that endeavour. Unless ruin was the goal. We have plenty of that.
On this one, you responded to yourself--reference post #56.  So this makes absolutely no sense....
#160 | 1104 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

das3cr wrote:
I guess you didn't notice that the democrats where shoting people at their homes for daring to work without a union card.  I don't think that will win the hearts and minds of the people who don't support mob run unions. As far as respecting the Office.  Well, I will when it's won back from the depths of despair. Hopefully a Tea Party candidate will win it.
Regarding to this post....No, I didn't see anything of this nature--which is why I asked you to provide a REFERENCE.

As for hoping a Tea Bagger will win.....well if you want a Theocratic Fascism as our new form of government, that's your perogative.  But considering the present congress is already being regarded as the worst, most ineffective in history, IMHO anyone who desires such doesn't have much of a realistic perspective as to just how such an organization would function. 
#161 | 1104 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

NorseHeathen wrote:
Regarding to this post....No, I didn't see anything of this nature--which is why I asked you to provide a REFERENCE.

As for hoping a Tea Bagger will win.....well if you want a Theocratic Fascism as our new form of government, that's your perogative.  But considering the present congress is already being regarded as the worst, most ineffective in history, IMHO anyone who desires such doesn't have much of a realistic perspective as to just how such an organization would function. 
 Did you watch the CNN debate? I got to see some of it I was working,but what I did see, did you ever during the debate get a feeling of, how do I put this? They want domination, this country, the laws, the way we think, they scared me. 
#162 | 1104 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Did you watch the CNN debate? I got to see some of it I was working,but what I did see, did you ever during the debate get a feeling of, how do I put this? They want domination, this country, the laws, the way we think, they scared me. 
 The thing that terrified me most about the debate is that there were 3 times I agreed with someone or at least thought they had a legitimate idea to be considered.  All three were by Rick Perry.  When Rick Perry is the ideas guy, its getting bad.
#163 | 1103 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
NorseHeathen wrote:
I'll support that philosophy as soon as corporate donations to campaigns are distributed through a consensus of all the workers in a corporation.  I would LOVE to see just how much of the millions of dollars would go to "non-conservative", Libertarian, or even Green Party campaigns in such a case.
Not exactly a fair comparison.  Employees have zero say in what the owner(s) do with their profits.  Nor should they have a say.   Employees aren't paying annual dues to the companies they work for.  They get paid for their services.  It's one thing to be a shareholder and not having your voice heard...  It's another just working for the company and that's it.  Further, unlike unions, corporate America tends to distribute their political funds evenly.  Far more evenly than unions do.  Corporations know they need to butter both sides of the bread.

Further still...  It's already against the law to spend a member's money on political causes w/o the member's consent.   This law absolutely needs to be enforced.  I'm wondering...  How many union members out there have even been informed of their Beck rights, as unions are legally required to do?  I know I sure wasn't.
#164 | 1103 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
I have a hard time ever seeing that happening.  I do not think there could ever be a fair way for that, but I do see where someone in a union not wanting a union to support any candidate.  I do not think I would like someone speaking for me in that instance. 
In my case, it's not a political thing.  I don't want my union spending money on ANY candidate from ANY party.  I want them focused on our contract.  Not on politics.
#165 | 1103 days ago

ML31 wrote:
In my case, it's not a political thing.  I don't want my union spending money on ANY candidate from ANY party.  I want them focused on our contract.  Not on politics.
 But politics effect your contract whether you like it or not.
#166 | 1103 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
In my case, it's not a political thing.  I don't want my union spending money on ANY candidate from ANY party.  I want them focused on our contract.  Not on politics.
 And I kinda agree, but the problem is there are candidates that do not believe in unions, so therefore your union will endorse ones that do. 
#167 | 1103 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

kantwistaye wrote:
 The thing that terrified me most about the debate is that there were 3 times I agreed with someone or at least thought they had a legitimate idea to be considered.  All three were by Rick Perry.  When Rick Perry is the ideas guy, its getting bad.
 The statement about getting rid of the e.p.a. scared the hell out of me. God big business already don't give a crap about the environment, (sorry blanket) some big business, man without the e.p.a. in place, well you get where I'm going with this. 
#168 | 1103 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 But politics effect your contract whether you like it or not.
I do not see how.  The contract isn't political except in the internal business sense.
#169 | 1103 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I do not see how.  The contract isn't political except in the internal business sense.
 If you're in Wisconsin or Ohio and are a public employee you no longer have the right to collectively bargain.  That was done politically and was the first step in a larger attempt to bring down labor unions.  That's how.
#170 | 1103 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
cubsgirl2 wrote:
 And I kinda agree, but the problem is there are candidates that do not believe in unions, so therefore your union will endorse ones that do. 
The union endorses anyone and anything that will give them money and power.  However, the only power I want them to have is the power to negotiate a fair deal for their members.  I have no problem paying the dues provided it goes only to that.  I do not like them using my dues to get bigger and bigger and to get involved in politics.  That means less time and effort devoted to doing what they are here for.  Working on behalf of their members.  And since they are not in the business to turn profits, they should not be looking for more money from the members than they absolutely need to negotiate and enforce the contract.  One cent beyond that makes them thieves, IMHO.

Make no mistake...  I am NOT anti union.  The union serves a needed purpose.  The problem with them is that over time many of them have become the very thing they were created to fight against.  Very large and very corrupt.  Enforcing the Beck laws is one step to help alleviate that problem.
#171 | 1103 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 If you're in Wisconsin or Ohio and are a public employee you no longer have the right to collectively bargain.  That was done politically and was the first step in a larger attempt to bring down labor unions.  That's how.
I'm not in Wisconsin or Ohio. 

What was being attempted in those places was an extreme reaction to an extreme financial situation and not the norm.  And not too bright, if you ask me....  But that's another issue.

What else ya' got?
#172 | 1103 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 If you're in Wisconsin or Ohio and are a public employee you no longer have the right to collectively bargain.  That was done politically and was the first step in a larger attempt to bring down labor unions.  That's how.
Michigan, Florida too
I think this  
#173 | 1103 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
The union endorses anyone and anything that will give them money and power.  However, the only power I want them to have is the power to negotiate a fair deal for their members.  I have no problem paying the dues provided it goes only to that.  I do not like them using my dues to get bigger and bigger and to get involved in politics.  That means less time and effort devoted to doing what they are here for.  Working on behalf of their members.  And since they are not in the business to turn profits, they should not be looking for more money from the members than they absolutely need to negotiate and enforce the contract.  One cent beyond that makes them thieves, IMHO.

Make no mistake...  I am NOT anti union.  The union serves a needed purpose.  The problem with them is that over time many of them have become the very thing they were created to fight against.  Very large and very corrupt.  Enforcing the Beck laws is one step to help alleviate that problem.
 You know I am the daughter of a truck driver.  And therefore brought up very pro union, I am still a union believer.  And I do believe they endorse the candidates that believe that workers need a voice. The g.o.p. and the tea party doesn't fit that description very well. They tend to want one voice, theirs only.  So if I were you, I'd be ok with them wanting to ensure the right to unions by endorsing pro union candidates. 
#174 | 1103 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 You know I am the daughter of a truck driver.  And therefore brought up very pro union, I am still a union believer.  And I do believe they endorse the candidates that believe that workers need a voice. The g.o.p. and the tea party doesn't fit that description very well. They tend to want one voice, theirs only.  So if I were you, I'd be ok with them wanting to ensure the right to unions by endorsing pro union candidates. 
Unions aren't there to endorse candidates or get involved in politics.  They are there to keep the workers they represent from being unfairly taken advantage of.

Beck laws need to be enforced because that way at least the members who don't approve of their unions extra curricular activities don't have to contribute funds to it.

BTW...  When you say "workers need a voice"  what exactly do you mean?  I ask because the union ensures workers have a voice when dealing with the employers even without the union contributing to candidates or issues.  Taking the union funds out of politics does not silence the members in the political arena in any way shape or form.  The members are still free to vote for whoever or whatever cause they wish.  Hence, they have a say and their voices get heard.  They don't need their union to ensure that.  The Constitution does it for them.
#175 | 1103 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
Unions aren't there to endorse candidates or get involved in politics.  They are there to keep the workers they represent from being unfairly taken advantage of.

Beck laws need to be enforced because that way at least the members who don't approve of their unions extra curricular activities don't have to contribute funds to it.

BTW...  When you say "workers need a voice"  what exactly do you mean?  I ask because the union ensures workers have a voice when dealing with the employers even without the union contributing to candidates or issues.  Taking the union funds out of politics does not silence the members in the political arena in any way shape or form.  The members are still free to vote for whoever or whatever cause they wish.  Hence, they have a say and their voices get heard.  They don't need their union to ensure that.  The Constitution does it for them.
 union workers have a voice, they have a bargaining table, they will if necessary go on strike to ensure a decent salary and a decent working condition. I am a waitress and trust me, there are millions upon millions of workers such as myself that would love to have that safety net. 


I understand what you are saying about the political aspect i DO. but on this point I will tell you, be careful what you wish for, you may just get it. 
#176 | 1103 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 union workers have a voice, they have a bargaining table, they will if necessary go on strike to ensure a decent salary and a decent working condition. I am a waitress and trust me, there are millions upon millions of workers such as myself that would love to have that safety net. 


I understand what you are saying about the political aspect i DO. but on this point I will tell you, be careful what you wish for, you may just get it. 
OK then.  That voice will not be silenced in any way if the unions cease throwing money into the political arena.  And if the union is well run, maybe they could use the money to better serve their members.  Or possibly even reduce their members dues a bit so they can keep more of their hard earned money.

The Beck laws are there yet unions blatantly ignore it.  Like I asked earlier...  How many union members out there were made aware of their Beck rights as the law requires unions to do?  I suspect not very many.  Police officers would get thrown off the force if they made an arrest without reading the accused his rights.  Yet unions fail to do so every single day.
#177 | 1103 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Did you watch the CNN debate? I got to see some of it I was working,but what I did see, did you ever during the debate get a feeling of, how do I put this? They want domination, this country, the laws, the way we think, they scared me. 
I watched as much as I could stomach....there's only so rhetorical bull I can handle.
#178 | 1103 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
Not exactly a fair comparison.  Employees have zero say in what the owner(s) do with their profits.  Nor should they have a say.   Employees aren't paying annual dues to the companies they work for.  They get paid for their services.  It's one thing to be a shareholder and not having your voice heard...  It's another just working for the company and that's it.  Further, unlike unions, corporate America tends to distribute their political funds evenly.  Far more evenly than unions do.  Corporations know they need to butter both sides of the bread.

Further still...  It's already against the law to spend a member's money on political causes w/o the member's consent.   This law absolutely needs to be enforced.  I'm wondering...  How many union members out there have even been informed of their Beck rights, as unions are legally required to do?  I know I sure wasn't.
As for corporate contributions, every individual is allowed to make personal contributions, but when you take the prosperity achieved by a united effort (in which a corporation embodies), then not to allow all of those involved to make a decision as to where corporate monies are spent pertaining to elections--which affect everybody, is a complete contradiction to the recent Supreme Court decision.  If you justify the CEO's to represent the corporation in deciding for their employees, then too does the essence of representation apply to unions--moreso as a union's specific function is to represent their members.  Having the ability to contribute a standard limit that is guaranteed to all Americans, then having the ability to contribute "unlimited" funds through Super-PAC's is an injustice.

And if corporations "buttered both sides of the bread", there would be no need for unions.  Over the past 30 years workers pay hasn't even kept up with the cost of living increase; yet, the "white collars" salaries have increased almost exponentially over that time.  That, along with the polarity in political "protections and compensations" is bordering upon perverse. 

As for corporate America's tendency to "distribute their political funds evenly--I never realized you had a sense of humor, thanks for the laugh!
#179 | 1103 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
I'm not in Wisconsin or Ohio. 

What was being attempted in those places was an extreme reaction to an extreme financial situation and not the norm.  And not too bright, if you ask me....  But that's another issue.

What else ya' got?
The fact that you don't know about what's been going on in these two states just proves that you are ill-informed and capable only of pundit rhetoric.  Geeze.....(shakes head).....

At least I won't be wasting any more time on this issue.....
#180 | 1103 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
OK then.  That voice will not be silenced in any way if the unions cease throwing money into the political arena.  And if the union is well run, maybe they could use the money to better serve their members.  Or possibly even reduce their members dues a bit so they can keep more of their hard earned money.

The Beck laws are there yet unions blatantly ignore it.  Like I asked earlier...  How many union members out there were made aware of their Beck rights as the law requires unions to do?  I suspect not very many.  Police officers would get thrown off the force if they made an arrest without reading the accused his rights.  Yet unions fail to do so every single day.
 


I'm tired 
#181 | 1103 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
Texas job report is out:

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/16/7796858-latest-texas-jobs-figures-shows-net-jobs-loss-unemployment-highest-in-24-years


And this:  www.progressive.org/inside_alec.html
I think this  
#182 | 1103 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
NorseHeathen wrote:
As for corporate contributions, every individual is allowed to make personal contributions, but when you take the prosperity achieved by a united effort (in which a corporation embodies), then not to allow all of those involved to make a decision as to where corporate monies are spent pertaining to elections--which affect everybody, is a complete contradiction to the recent Supreme Court decision.  If you justify the CEO's to represent the corporation in deciding for their employees, then too does the essence of representation apply to unions--moreso as a union's specific function is to represent their members.  Having the ability to contribute a standard limit that is guaranteed to all Americans, then having the ability to contribute "unlimited" funds through Super-PAC's is an injustice.

And if corporations "buttered both sides of the bread", there would be no need for unions.  Over the past 30 years workers pay hasn't even kept up with the cost of living increase; yet, the "white collars" salaries have increased almost exponentially over that time.  That, along with the polarity in political "protections and compensations" is bordering upon perverse. 

As for corporate America's tendency to "distribute their political funds evenly--I never realized you had a sense of humor, thanks for the laugh!
Maybe it's late in the week and I'm getting to mentally fatigued...  But I need to ask you to rewrite your opening paragraph.  It's not making sense to me.   I swear, there are times when I think you intentionally over write just to sound like an intellectual elitist.   Ironic since elitism is something you have often cried out against.

Corporations do "butter both sides of the bread".  (Link) They have for decades.  And in spite of that, sadly, there will always be a need for unions.  (Unless you think unions exist to be political lobbyists only and are not there to represent workers to employers)  If the pay unions negotiate for their members does not keep up with the existing economy then who is to blame for that?  The union representatives at the bargaining table mainly.

I always suspected that you blindly bought into political rhetoric.  Your last sentence confirmed it.
#183 | 1103 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
NorseHeathen wrote:
The fact that you don't know about what's been going on in these two states just proves that you are ill-informed and capable only of pundit rhetoric.  Geeze.....(shakes head).....

At least I won't be wasting any more time on this issue.....
Really?   You somehow decided that was a fact when all the evidence supports the opposite?  Really?


Speaking of ill informed pundit rhetoric....   Someone actually wrote this... 

As for corporate America's tendency to "distribute their political funds evenly--I never realized you had a sense of humor, thanks for the laugh!


Can you believe people still buy into that partisan garbage? 
#184 | 1103 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
Maybe it's late in the week and I'm getting to mentally fatigued...  But I need to ask you to rewrite your opening paragraph.  It's not making sense to me.   I swear, there are times when I think you intentionally over write just to sound like an intellectual elitist.   Ironic since elitism is something you have often cried out against.

Corporations do "butter both sides of the bread".  (Link) They have for decades.  And in spite of that, sadly, there will always be a need for unions.  (Unless you think unions exist to be political lobbyists only and are not there to represent workers to employers)  If the pay unions negotiate for their members does not keep up with the existing economy then who is to blame for that?  The union representatives at the bargaining table mainly.

I always suspected that you blindly bought into political rhetoric.  Your last sentence confirmed it.
(yawn....)
#185 | 1103 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
Really?   You somehow decided that was a fact when all the evidence supports the opposite?  Really?


Speaking of ill informed pundit rhetoric....   Someone actually wrote this... 

As for corporate America's tendency to "distribute their political funds evenly--I never realized you had a sense of humor, thanks for the laugh!


Can you believe people still buy into that partisan garbage? 
Spoken from a true partisan....(yawn)....
#186 | 1102 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
(yawn....)
What's this?  No lengthy elitist diatribe in rebuttal?   I don't know weather to be relieved or disappointed!
#187 | 1102 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
What's this?  No lengthy elitist diatribe in rebuttal?   I don't know weather to be relieved or disappointed!
Well, considering it's the end of the week and you're having a difficult time understanding what I write, I thought I'd give your limited philosophical capabilities a rest.....

To the rest of the list, here's something cool: 

news.yahoo.com/gm-uaw-agree-4-contract-064855679.html

GM, UAW agree on new 4-year contract

"When GM was struggling, our members shared in the sacrifice. Now that the company is posting profits again, our members want to share in the success," UAW Vice President Joe Ashton, the chief negotiator with GM, said in a statement.

This is the kind of flexibility the Dumb-publicans just don't get.....
    
#188 | 1102 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
NorseHeathen wrote:
Well, considering it's the end of the week and you're having a difficult time understanding what I write, I thought I'd give your limited philosophical capabilities a rest.....

To the rest of the list, here's something cool: 

news.yahoo.com/gm-uaw-agree-4-contract-064855679.html

GM, UAW agree on new 4-year contract

"When GM was struggling, our members shared in the sacrifice. Now that the company is posting profits again, our members want to share in the success," UAW Vice President Joe Ashton, the chief negotiator with GM, said in a statement.

This is the kind of flexibility the Dumb-publicans just don't get.....
    
You are so very predictable.  I gave you the opportunity to make a petty comment about me not comprehending your elitist gobbledygook and you took it and ran like I knew you would.  I did think you would do it in the very next post.  I was wrong there.  But you went there with your 2nd.  

Your partisanship is blatant.  Not only would dumb republicans not get it, but dumb democrats, independent and dumb anyone wouldn't get it.  Stupidity is not the property of one political party.  They all get to share the wealth there.  But some people are simply too blind to get that.  Most are the same people who ignorantly opt to believe that big corporate money goes only to one party.
#189 | 1102 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Yawn.....

#190 | 1102 days ago

The timing of your boredom comes as absolutely no surprise.  Thanks for playing!
#191 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
The timing of your boredom comes as absolutely no surprise.  Thanks for playing!
 You know, I have had a very bad night. And I usually can keep my tongue in check, but, you need to learn how to agree to disagree respectfully.  I suggest that you learn how to talk to people like they have as much right to thier beliefs as you do.  You take arguing to a whole new level, and that is not a compliment. 
#192 | 1101 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 You know, I have had a very bad night. And I usually can keep my tongue in check, but, you need to learn how to agree to disagree respectfully.  I suggest that you learn how to talk to people like they have as much right to thier beliefs as you do.  You take arguing to a whole new level, and that is not a compliment. 
My flaw is that I sometimes respond in the same tone and attitude that I am getting.  If you think I am not responding to people like they have as much right to thier beliefs as I do it is because that is the way I am getting treated to begin with.  I have dealt with Mr. Norse before where he didn't get all condescending and snobby on me.  Things went well.  This thread he is copping attitude.  Only he can tell you why.

Bottom line is I am receptive to your message but it needs to be given to more than just one person else it carries very little weight.
#193 | 1101 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
My flaw is that I sometimes respond in the same tone and attitude that I am getting.  If you think I am not responding to people like they have as much right to thier beliefs as I do it is because that is the way I am getting treated to begin with.  I have dealt with Mr. Norse before where he didn't get all condescending and snobby on me.  Things went well.  This thread he is copping attitude.  Only he can tell you why.

Bottom line is I am receptive to your message but it needs to be given to more than just one person else it carries very little weight.
The irony is that your narcissism blinds you as to the manner upon which you interact.  There was a poll, whereas people suggested awards.  Let's just say there was an award I presented, that was identified as another poster to the forums as being the perfect award for you, and it got 32 "respects".  The award was for the one person that thinks they're right all the time, no matter how ludicrous their rationalizations.  Everyone sees it but you; hence the designation of narcissist.

#194 | 1101 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
The irony is that your narcissism blinds you as to the manner upon which you interact.  There was a poll, whereas people suggested awards.  Let's just say there was an award I presented, that was identified as another poster to the forums as being the perfect award for you, and it got 32 "respects".  The award was for the one person that thinks they're right all the time, no matter how ludicrous their rationalizations.  Everyone sees it but you; hence the designation of narcissist.

It is obvious that in spite of your severely over written posts you have absolutely no idea what a narcissist is.   Just looking at our writing styles reveals this to the world.  The fact is, to anyone who cares to objectively read the posts would see it was you who brought this entire thing on.  I helped keep it going, yes.  But you, my self centered friend, were the catalyst.  I would label you the Rush Limbaugh of the FanIQ but at least Limbaugh can be entertaining when he blows his hot air.

Here is something you (and others) don't do.  It's called presenting evidence to support your accusations...
In your post #86 you first began to get snippy by telling me I was "tap dancing" with you when I wasn't.
In your post #95 you accused me of being "obtuse" only because you disagreed and didn't offer anything constructive.
In your post #135 you resorted to this little gem...  "What puzzles me is that you're an educated person; why resort to tactics of denial, minimization, and misrepresentation.  Either you're doing it on purpose, or you haven't been paying attention over the past year (plus) and don't have a clue."  Again, with no provocation except that I dared say something you disagreed with.
To that in my post #136 I asked you to clarify and explain why you would make such an accusation.  
In your post #137 you snaked your way out of backing up your accusations.
Then, after all that...  In my post #138 for the first time I gave you a little bit of the attitude you have been giving me in the mentioned 4 earlier posts.

You started dishing out attitude again in your post #179 when you claimed something was a fact about me that required a great leap in reasoning.  From there your attitude just grew to the point of posting the photo you just did.  The funny thing is that I actually contemplated posting that very same image earlier but decided against it as it was going too far.  

Care to point out posts that will actually support your narcissist accusation rather than the "wikiality" tactic you opted for?

Of course you don't.  We both know why.
#195 | 1101 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

You just proved my point.  A narcissist would never admit to being a narcissist.....LOL!

Look it up in a dictionary.  BTW, whilst you're doing that, you might want to look up campaign donations.  To Republicans go the corporate funds, to the Democrats go the Union and other citizen group funds.  That contradicts your tantrum in Post 188.  I know why I won't address your posts, because although I presented information in our earlier exchanges, you just rationalized, (et.al. tactics) with the same rhetorical dribble.

I don't even take you seriously anymore.  Intelligent, yes, I'll give you that, but it's wasted ability with your unyielding dedications.  BTW, the funniest part of your posts are the assumptions you make.....thanks for the laughs....
#196 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
My flaw is that I sometimes respond in the same tone and attitude that I am getting.  If you think I am not responding to people like they have as much right to thier beliefs as I do it is because that is the way I am getting treated to begin with.  I have dealt with Mr. Norse before where he didn't get all condescending and snobby on me.  Things went well.  This thread he is copping attitude.  Only he can tell you why.

Bottom line is I am receptive to your message but it needs to be given to more than just one person else it carries very little weight.
Dude, you ALWAYS draw first blood. Do you not know this?  I agree with Norse that you are intelligent, but, just start disagreeing a little more respectfully. We all have one thing in common, we are all humans, and want the respect that you want. 
#197 | 1101 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
You just proved my point.  A narcissist would never admit to being a narcissist.....LOL!

Look it up in a dictionary.  BTW, whilst you're doing that, you might want to look up campaign donations.  To Republicans go the corporate funds, to the Democrats go the Union and other citizen group funds.  That contradicts your tantrum in Post 188.  I know why I won't address your posts, because although I presented information in our earlier exchanges, you just rationalized, (et.al. tactics) with the same rhetorical dribble.

I don't even take you seriously anymore.  Intelligent, yes, I'll give you that, but it's wasted ability with your unyielding dedications.  BTW, the funniest part of your posts are the assumptions you make.....thanks for the laughs....
By that reasoning, you are a narcissist as well.  Schoolyard logic.   Too funny...  But not entirely unexpected.

To be perfectly honest, I did look it up to make sure my understanding of the word was correct.     It was.
I provided a link for you regarding who donates to what, btw.  I think it is you who needs to look that stuff up.  
While you are looking stuff up, look up the word 'tantrum'.  You misused that word as well.

No need to hide behind some made up bogus reason you won't address the issues with anything beyond the official DNC rhetoric.  We both know it's because you cannot come up with facts to make your case and that there is no post to support the personal accusations you made towards me. 

And finally, your next to last sentence requires this question...  Where are all the assumptions I allegedly made?  That's right.  You don't have an answer.  
#198 | 1101 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
  Agree to disagree and STFU about it.
I think this  
#199 | 1101 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
cubsgirl2 wrote:
Dude, you ALWAYS draw first blood. Do you not know this?  I agree with Norse that you are intelligent, but, just start disagreeing a little more respectfully. We all have one thing in common, we are all humans, and want the respect that you want. 
"Always"?  Quite the absolute.  Care to support that with ONE example from this thread?  Shouldn't be too hard, right?

I already summed it up in my post #194. Go back and check it out for yourself.  If you have even the slightest bit of objectivity you will find it was Norse who drew first blood here.  Certainly at least one of the 4 comments he made leading up to my first jab to him can be seen as the first strike.

This story often repeats itself.  Someone who disagrees with me starts to cop attitude and makes accusations about what I do here.  I ask to have such instances pointed out because if true I need to be made aware of it or it will never change.  NO ONE has done so.  Ever.  So you will have to forgive me if I conclude that people who make the accusations are likely doing so more out of frustration than anything else.
#200 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
"Always"?  Quite the absolute.  Care to support that with ONE example from this thread?  Shouldn't be too hard, right?

I already summed it up in my post #194. Go back and check it out for yourself.  If you have even the slightest bit of objectivity you will find it was Norse who drew first blood here.  Certainly at least one of the 4 comments he made leading up to my first jab to him can be seen as the first strike.

This story often repeats itself.  Someone who disagrees with me starts to cop attitude and makes accusations about what I do here.  I ask to have such instances pointed out because if true I need to be made aware of it or it will never change.  NO ONE has done so.  Ever.  So you will have to forgive me if I conclude that people who make the accusations are likely doing so more out of frustration than anything else.
 The only thing I am frustrated about are the Cubs.  
#201 | 1101 days ago

 I'm going to post this link here. I love Dave. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/18/foo-fighters-westboro-baptist-church_n_968395.html?1316352969&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Becky needs to run.  
#202 | 1101 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 The only thing I am frustrated about are the Cubs.  
Excellent.  That was disarming and a not at all a bad way to respond.

But one can't help notice that yet another request for examples was ignored.
#203 | 1101 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Sigh)  With regard to the issue of unions, I posted the example of the UAW / GM example and how that is the mutual benefit for both parties, and you completely ignored it in your further responses.....yet another example of how it doesn't matter if the issue is 2+2=4, if you don't agree, you will rationalize, disregard, deny, divert, etc......  For all of these "requests", you ignore what's been presented, and go off on your own tangents. 

Like I said, what a waste.  Kind of like Ryan Leaf having great potential and natural talent for QB, but not having--well, we all know the story of Ryan Leaf......
#204 | 1101 days ago

 Football is on...
Good bye.  
#205 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
 Football is on...
 



#206 | 1101 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

The first post of adversity is post #76.

Gearhead made a point and you became condescending and dismissive.   The soviet era propaganda did the same thing.....deny, deny, deny, then some will begin to believe.

We've been down this road before.  No matter what examples are provided, there's always a rationalization, and denial, or such is ignored or deemed not relevant.
#207 | 1101 days ago

www.politicususa.com/en/media-blackout-us-day-of-rage
I think this  
#208 | 1101 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
BTW, did anyone catch the story about the President's new proposal, the "Buffet Rule"?

news.yahoo.com/obama-seek-tax-rate-wealthy-225820977.html

Of course, that's already being dismissed by the 'corporation protectors' in congress.  Remind me, did any of the "job providers" ever start providing jobs like Speaker Boener said they would if President Obama signed the tax break for the top 2%.  No?  Guess that's just more empty rhetoric from the political right  wrong......
#209 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
Excellent.  That was disarming and a not at all a bad way to respond.

But one can't help notice that yet another request for examples was ignored.
You know for one who makes so many very intelligent comments, it amazes me that you think that we are just making all it up. You are combative and arrogant, and trust me you do have the I am right all of you guys are wrong attitude. But that's ok that's how you are. But do not expect people to just respectfully disagree with you and you not give them the same.  Now I know you will tell me I am wrong, and I can live with that. I do appreciate all of your comments in these polls. I have enjoyed them and you as well, thank you.
#210 | 1101 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
cubsgirl2 wrote:
You know for one who makes so many very intelligent comments, it amazes me that you think that we are just making all it up. You are combative and arrogant, and trust me you do have the I am right all of you guys are wrong attitude. But that's ok that's how you are. But do not expect people to just respectfully disagree with you and you not give them the same.  Now I know you will tell me I am wrong, and I can live with that. I do appreciate all of your comments in these polls. I have enjoyed them and you as well, thank you.
What conclusion should I reach?  No one I know feels this way.  Friends, family, girlfriend.  Even colleagues don't.  Only a handful of faceless people who seem to get easily riled when their beliefs get questioned have ever mentioned it and when I ask them for the reasons for it they NEVER answer.  What would you think if you were in those shoes?
The fact is I do not and never have presented any more of an "I am always right" attitude any more than anyone else here and no one has ever presented any evidence to even suggest I do.  In fact, Norses above post (208) just reeks of the "I am right and it is inconceivable that anyone would think I'm wrong" attitude.  Yet I don't see anyone ragging on him for it.  Obviously it's because that attitude is tolerated so long as you agree with the writer.  God forbid someone actually dare to disagree with the absolutes presented here.
Further still, in this very thread is an example of where I asked for something to counter what I said and actually received it!  I admitted my mistake and moved on.  It happens more often than some here like to pretend it does.

BTW...  Most opinion posts on the internet have that "I'm right" vibe to them.  It's stunning to me that you don't see it.  I see it all the time but It doesn't bother me.  So long as things don't get personal (like Norse did in #193) it's just internet fun.
#211 | 1101 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
(Sigh)  With regard to the issue of unions, I posted the example of the UAW / GM example and how that is the mutual benefit for both parties, and you completely ignored it in your further responses.....yet another example of how it doesn't matter if the issue is 2+2=4, if you don't agree, you will rationalize, disregard, deny, divert, etc......  For all of these "requests", you ignore what's been presented, and go off on your own tangents. 

Like I said, what a waste.  Kind of like Ryan Leaf having great potential and natural talent for QB, but not having--well, we all know the story of Ryan Leaf......
The comment you made didn't address any point I made.  It was just something for you to make a fun joke about how dumb one party is (thus implying that your side is not).  In fact, I already mentioned that I wasn't anti union and they actually served a purpose.  So you were sort of preaching to the choir with that one.

How about actually showing something that is relevant to your accusations?  Again, we both know you wont.
#212 | 1101 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
NorseHeathen wrote:
The first post of adversity is post #76.

Gearhead made a point and you became condescending and dismissive.   The soviet era propaganda did the same thing.....deny, deny, deny, then some will begin to believe.

We've been down this road before.  No matter what examples are provided, there's always a rationalization, and denial, or such is ignored or deemed not relevant.
OK...  I just picked myself up off the floor as you actually made an attempt to show something.  Fine.  Good for you.  Let's look at post 76.  Dismissive?  Perhaps.  No more than anyone else on this very thread however.  Meaning singling just me out for it is simply being vindictive.  Condescending?  Just not seeing it.  Perhaps you can explain what passages you took that way?  Again, I see nothing in that post any worse than anything anyone else has done here.

Now I know you will use your fancy politico speak and lawyer-like prose in a vain attempt to think I am in denial.  That way you can feel better about making baseless accusations without having to back it up with anything.  In the style of a true politician.  You really should run for office.  You are completely capable of pulling the wool over most folks eyes.
#213 | 1101 days ago

Calling an intermission:   www.youtube.com/watch    

I think this  
#214 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ML31 wrote:
OK...  I just picked myself up off the floor as you actually made an attempt to show something.  Fine.  Good for you.  Let's look at post 76.  Dismissive?  Perhaps.  No more than anyone else on this very thread however.  Meaning singling just me out for it is simply being vindictive.  Condescending?  Just not seeing it.  Perhaps you can explain what passages you took that way?  Again, I see nothing in that post any worse than anything anyone else has done here.

Now I know you will use your fancy politico speak and lawyer-like prose in a vain attempt to think I am in denial.  That way you can feel better about making baseless accusations without having to back it up with anything.  In the style of a true politician.  You really should run for office.  You are completely capable of pulling the wool over most folks eyes.
 Try post 90 when you told Janet her comment was hilarious  when she was being very serious.   But I will agree with you on this point, I do believe you are right when you say on the internet all comments have a I am right vibe. I never thought about it until you said that. And I agree with it.   Although one does tend to know if they are offending. I know I do. 
#215 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

ohwell_ wrote:

Calling an intermission:   www.youtube.com/watch    

 Omg, that was great. I love Christopher Walken and who knew he could move? Well if he ever goes on dancing with the starts I will watch it. 
#216 | 1101 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Try post 90 when you told Janet her comment was hilarious  when she was being very serious.   But I will agree with you on this point, I do believe you are right when you say on the internet all comments have a I am right vibe. I never thought about it until you said that. And I agree with it.   Although one does tend to know if they are offending. I know I do. 
Context is everything.  You are right... If I made the "hilarious" comment and that was it.  But there was more to it.  I did indeed find what she said amusing for the very reasons I mentioned in the post.  That being said, I suppose it could have been taken worse than it was now that you mention it.  I intentionally went a little overboard with the hopes of making a stronger point.  I figured that Janet got that when she responded in a normal manner, however.  I know I wouldn't have been offended by it.  As a general rule when I write (before someone goes down the arrogant and condescending path in my direction of course) I look at what was written and ask myself if I would feel a line was crossed with what I wrote.  If I would be OK with it being said to me, 'submit' is pressed.  If not, I edit.  I kinda wish more people would use that "golden rule" kind of philosophy when they write posts.  But it's obvious to me that many do not.  

I also happen to think that one requires a little bit of a thick skin when posting on message boards.  Just a tad at least.  There are a lot of inconsiderate posters out there.  Many frequent this site.  It's best not to let them get to you.  As I said before...  This is all supposed to be good fun.  It still is for me.  Obviously not for others.  Oh well...  To each his/her own.
#217 | 1101 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
ML31 wrote:
Context is everything.  You are right... If I made the "hilarious" comment and that was it.  But there was more to it.  I did indeed find what she said amusing for the very reasons I mentioned in the post.  That being said, I suppose it could have been taken worse than it was now that you mention it.  I intentionally went a little overboard with the hopes of making a stronger point.  I figured that Janet got that when she responded in a normal manner, however.  I know I wouldn't have been offended by it.  As a general rule when I write (before someone goes down the arrogant and condescending path in my direction of course) I look at what was written and ask myself if I would feel a line was crossed with what I wrote.  If I would be OK with it being said to me, 'submit' is pressed.  If not, I edit.  I kinda wish more people would use that "golden rule" kind of philosophy when they write posts.  But it's obvious to me that many do not.  

I also happen to think that one requires a little bit of a thick skin when posting on message boards.  Just a tad at least.  There are a lot of inconsiderate posters out there.  Many frequent this site.  It's best not to let them get to you.  As I said before...  This is all supposed to be good fun.  It still is for me.  Obviously not for others.  Oh well...  To each his/her own.
 Lol, trust me she wasn't offended. Hers is a very thick skin.   And this is fun, but this poll does get heated.  And again you are right to each. 



But I was serious when I said thank you for your comments in these polls, you made it more interesting that's for sure.  And hopefully when Eric takes them over you will continue to do so. 


  And I also will say this, this was my last comment in my final calling all Lib - Tard polls.       
#218 | 1101 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
OK...  I just picked myself up off the floor as you actually made an attempt to show something.  Fine.  Good for you.  Let's look at post 76.  Dismissive?  Perhaps.  No more than anyone else on this very thread however.  Meaning singling just me out for it is simply being vindictive.  Condescending?  Just not seeing it.  Perhaps you can explain what passages you took that way?  Again, I see nothing in that post any worse than anything anyone else has done here.

Now I know you will use your fancy politico speak and lawyer-like prose in a vain attempt to think I am in denial.  That way you can feel better about making baseless accusations without having to back it up with anything.  In the style of a true politician.  You really should run for office.  You are completely capable of pulling the wool over most folks eyes.
Uff da....(eye-roll).....
#219 | 1101 days ago

#220 | 1099 days ago

OK, I think that the conversation here has run its course. Since the poll closes in less than 24 hours, I think we can wrap this up. My last thought for this poll is that DADT was officially killed today. The fact that we barely noticed is just as big an accomplishment IMO.

With that, thank you to Glenda. I hope I can fill your giant shoes. Next poll will come at some point in the future. For now, this session is closed.

*bangs gavel*
#221 | 1098 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
OK, I think that the conversation here has run its course. Since the poll closes in less than 24 hours, I think we can wrap this up. My last thought for this poll is that DADT was officially killed today. The fact that we barely noticed is just as big an accomplishment IMO.

With that, thank you to Glenda. I hope I can fill your giant shoes. Next poll will come at some point in the future. For now, this session is closed.

*bangs gavel*
Just doing this to rage against the machine.
It's not over til we SAY it's over, motherf**kerrrrrrrrrrr!


(OK, I'm done.  Make another one soon, thanks.  )
Good bye.  
#222 | 1098 days ago

* kicks popcorn bag under seat, and walks out grumbling*
#223 | 1098 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Just doing this to rage against the machine.
It's not over til we SAY it's over, motherf**kerrrrrrrrrrr!


(OK, I'm done.  Make another one soon, thanks.  )
After tonight's events, one might be coming sooner than you think.
#224 | 1098 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

Eric_ wrote:
OK, I think that the conversation here has run its course. Since the poll closes in less than 24 hours, I think we can wrap this up. My last thought for this poll is that DADT was officially killed today. The fact that we barely noticed is just as big an accomplishment IMO.

With that, thank you to Glenda. I hope I can fill your giant shoes. Next poll will come at some point in the future. For now, this session is closed.

*bangs gavel*
  




Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
NineTwentyTwo
Asked by marcus_nyce | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Yesterday
2 opinions | 16 comments | Last by JenX63
Filter Error 9/19
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/19/14
8 opinions | 31 comments | Last by woody050681
Filter Error 9/18
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/18/14
6 opinions | 28 comments | Last by woody050681
Filter Error 9/17
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/17/14
10 opinions | 19 comments | Last by Dream_Machine
Favorite Teams?
Asked by OneStepBeyond | Locker Room, FanIQ | 1 questions asked 02/12/13
23 opinions | 26 comments | Last by ML31