American Politics during the Obama Presidency

While some posters have from time to time used put-downs in their posts, Walleye has demonstrated he is the indisputable king of insults and put-downs. He uses them frequently in his responses, probably to compensate for the weak impact of his arguments.

Some recent gems:

[QUOTE]F-ing brilliant and poignant
One of the most Moreonic posts
Hopelessness and cluelessness
Mr. I don't know how to do a quote
Sorry, I meant utterly clueless
Still clueless
Clueless
There is the basis for your lie
Don't let ignorance keep you from posting
You are deluded
Basing emotional issues on lies
Hey dimwit
[/QUOTE]
It just goes to show you, all the money in the world can't buy class.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415782]I have proven myself to be a pretty decent barometer on certain subjects. I admit that I was off on the Republicans gaining control of the senate, that one was pretty close. I will tell you without a doubt, there are no polls that are currently, accurately tracking Obama's negatives amongst likely 2012 voters. If there were, they would be predicting something that would make Jimmy Carter blush. Despite the fact that in political terms there is still an eternity until November 2012, America hates this piker and it has nothing to do with his race.

America rejects liberalism, socialism and Obamaism. The election results of 2010 were a mere prelude. Thank God (I have one, thank you) they overstepped on healthcare (feel free to review WW's take on Obama overreaching circa summer 2009) and woke up the American public.

The political.slapping of 2010-2012 and beyond is like the culmination of 86 years or want by Bosox fans. The Yankees series is analogous to 2010 and hopefully 2012's electoral outcome will reflect the series win trouncing of St Louis. [/QUOTE]So are you giving 10-1 on Obama NOT winning 2012? Since my savings deposit's interest rate is so low, I don't mind taking the underdog.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;415784]So are you giving 10-1 on Obama NOT winning 2012? Since my savings deposit's interest rate is so low, I don't mind taking the underdog.[/QUOTE]An actual national election, without suspending the Constitution and / or declaring Marshall Law, I'll treat you to a night out on the town

[QUOTE=Esten;415783]While some posters have from time to time used put-downs in their posts, Walleye has demonstrated he is the indisputable king of insults and put-downs. He uses them frequently in his responses, probably to compensate for the weak impact of his arguments.[/quote]If my posts are so weak, why can't you even respond on topic?

[quote=]It just goes to show you, all the money in the world can't buy class.[/QUOTE]Ouch, you hurt my feelings.

[QUOTE=Esten;415783]While some posters have from time to time used put-downs in their posts, Walleye has demonstrated he is the indisputable king of insults and put-downs. He uses them frequently in his responses, probably to compensate for the weak impact of his arguments.[/QUOTE]That's a bunch of nonsense and you know it. He's quite civil until attacked. Once someone else crosses the line, the gloves come off.

Once again, you distort things. I've come to expect nothing less, though, so that's par for the course.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415785]An actual national election, without suspending the Constitution and / or declaring Marshall Law, I'll treat you to a night out on the town[/QUOTE]That's nice, and my chances are quite high. Obama will go all out to present a centrist policy with unemployment and economy being the key issues. Any liberal policies will be put on hold until 2nd term. The crisis in the Middle East and high oil prices will be roadblocks in his strategy.

In case I lose, is 2 girls in a soapie a deal?

We knew that Governor Sanford read this board, but it's good to see that Scott Walker is following along as well.

I threw this out there nearly a year ago and several times since then: Why do we need public unions? No one, not even Esten or Moreon, tried to answer it. The closest we got was someone who claimed that [i]private[/i] Sector unions had done some good long ago in San Francisco. That point is debatable, especially given San Francisco's dire financial condition, but it also was non-responsive.

Even now, with all the union furor in Wisconsin, none of the union bosses or lackeys, and no one in the media, has ever bothered to try to articulate why public unions are necessary or beneficial. I'm pretty sure I know why.

But, one last time: Why do we need public unions?

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 409286]Here's another one I'll throw out to the masses:

Why do we have unionized government workers?

I understand the historical reasons for the rise of unions. Unions allowed workers, collectively, to negotiate with powerful capitalists and companies over things like wages, work safety and work conditions. There was a time when the country needed that.

Frankly, I think unions have served their purpose and do far more harm than good now.

But why do we have unionized government workers? So that they can collectively negotiate over safety, wages and work rules with who? The government? In other words, us.

This issue is the largest problem USA States need to grapple with. For the past 40-50 years, unions such as CALPERS, the teachers' unions, police and fire unions, have collectively negotiated with who? Other government workers, who frequently are unionized themselves, over pay and benefits packages that are now simply obscene. It is the equivalent of the wolf and fox negotiating with each other over who gets rights to the sheep and the hen house. We're the sheep and hen house. The result is defined benefit pension plans, fully funded early retirement plans that pay 20-year employees six figure salaries for life, massively underfunded retirement plans, work rules that can easily be exploited by the workers to significant financial advantage (ask any cop) and a system that will collapse under its own weight.

I'd say that the solution is easy: Some of these states should declare bankruptcy and just negotiate new contracts, like GM and Chrysler. The only problem is, states are constitutionally forbidden from filing for bankruptcy. As a consequence, these issues are the elephant in the room that no one talks about. This is because the public employee unions are so powerful that any dissent from politicians is immediately met with a huge union war chest allocated to unseating anyone with the temerity to address this obvious issue.

In the end, we're the folks footing the tab. But sooner or later. Likely sooner. Something has to give. It won't happen under the current administration, but a starting place would be to simply ban unions from representing public employees. Union necessity can be debated where the private sector is concerned, but why are they the least bit necessary for government workers? [/QUOTE]

It is hard enough to get laid in the USA, now he wants to closed Nevada's brothels.

[url]http://www.elynews.com/articles/2011/02/25/news/news12.txt[/url]

Stan, Take a look at this, if you haven't already, about public sector unions,

[url]http://www.economist.com/node/17849199[/url]

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 415791]That's nice, and my chances are quite high. Obama will go all out to present a centrist policy with unemployment and economy being the key issues. Any liberal policies will be put on hold until 2nd term. The crisis in the Middle East and high oil prices will be roadblocks in his strategy.

In case I lose, is 2 girls in a soapie a deal? [/QUOTE]It'll take a really, really soapie deal (or a coup) to get our supreme ruler another term.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415805]It is hard enough to get laid in the USA, now he wants to closed Nevada's brothels.

[url]http://www.elynews.com/articles/2011/02/25/news/news12.txt[/url]

[/QUOTE]When that fat bald dude with the hen house in NV jumps in front of the camera to stand up for the rights of the working girls. I have seen that show on HBO once or twice (literally only once or twice). While I enjoy titillating entertainment as much as the next monger, that show is a waste of time, unless you are a non-monger and the thought of dipping one's wick in some strange (any strange) gets the juices flowing. I think I recall some guy dropping 2Gs to play out some fantasy with one of the pigs on the farm (ranch or whatever) for an hour or two. Are you kidding me? That is round trip air fare to any number of mongering spots and would likely cover hotel or apt rental. Shit, in NV, if you go to a brothel, you're over paying (and getting a sow) anyhow.

I agree with Stan, there should be no public sector unions, period. There is no 'Man' against whom they are railing, no evil corporation with whom they are facing off. The evil on the other side of the negotiation is. The tax payer. Give them standard benefits package (a la private sector jobs) and place a 'suggestions box' where they can find it. If they don't like it, provide them with an informative slip of pink paper, upon which the realities of the private sector a written.

It used to be great.

Of course that was years ago.

When it was, it was, what we are paying in Argentina now.

I showed the owner of that brothel, you are talking about; Kit Cat ranch, a photo of Dennise (from the Mansion) that I paid 150p for, he invited me to visit his ranch. If I was younger I might have gone, just to tell him what he is missing in Argentina.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415811]When that fat bald dude with the hen house in NV jumps in front of the camera to stand up for the rights of the working girls. I have seen that show on HBO once or twice (literally only once or twice). While I enjoy titillating entertainment as much as the next monger, that show is a waste of time, unless you are a non-monger and the thought of dipping one's wick in some strange (any strange) gets the juices flowing. I think I recall some guy dropping 2Gs to play out some fantasy with one of the pigs on the farm (ranch or whatever) for an hour or two. Are you kidding me? That is round trip air fare to any number of mongering spots and would likely cover hotel or apt rental. Shit, in NV, if you go to a brothel, you're over paying (and getting a sow) anyhow.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415787]That's a bunch of nonsense and you know it. He's quite civil until attacked. Once someone else crosses the line, the gloves come off.

Once again, you distort things. I've come to expect nothing less, though, so that's par for the course. [/QUOTE]Very laughable Stan. Quite civil until attacked? How many seconds do you think it would take me to locate a post where he insulted someone who was simply stating a point of view without attacking anyone?

Every reader here has seen enough of that from Walleye to know that what you wrote is a complete lie.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415812]I agree with Stan, there should be no public sector unions, period. There is no 'Man' against whom they are railing, no evil corporation with whom they are facing off. The evil on the other side of the negotiation is. The tax payer. Give them standard benefits package (a la private sector jobs) and place a 'suggestions box' where they can find it. If they don't like it, provide them with an informative slip of pink paper, upon which the realities of the private sector a written.[/QUOTE]"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for officials to bind the employer. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives.

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people. This obligation is paramount. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent to prevent or obstruct government. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government, is unthinkable and intolerable."

Was it?

A. Ronald Reagan.

B. Ron Paul.

C. Rush Limbaugh.

Nope. FDR!

Here's the link:

[url]http://www.huberheightslibertygroup.com/node/259[/url]