Printable View
[QUOTE=Jackson; 413241]Five!
Five out of 311 Democrats running for House and Senate seats?
That's only 1.6% of all the Democrats running for House and Senate seats who are willing at best to "reference" health care in their campaigns?
Man, that's thin!
Thanks,
Jackson. [/QUOTE]Not everyone has the luxury of running on the "I'm not a witch / warlock" or the "Masturbation is bad" platform. That is reserved for the Teabag candidates.
Obama et. Al. Have been touting the Stimulus (which saved the world as we know it) and ObamaCare since they shoved it through Congress amid outrage from voters. Now most of the Democrats are considering these 'achievements' to be Toxic and will not go near them on the campaign trail.
Now tell me again about how wonderful ObamaCare is? Remember how they sold the program based on how it will reduce costs and cover everyone? Now Obama is craw-fishing saying he never promised the program would reduce costs. As parts of ObamaCare come into force the insurance companies are not writing new policies since the 2,000 page bill does not specifically lay out the rules under which they must operate – no, that comes later from HHS and other government entities. That's why you see all the back peddling regarding new policies, guidelines and costs from the government.
After all the ballyhoo on ObamaCare, everyone is realizing there is no 'free lunch' someone is going to have to pick up the tab. People are recognizing that 'Government Money' is the money they stole from their pay checks in the first place!
Now Obama is considering raising the Federal gas tax to pay for roads, runways, and other infrastructure. Hey didn't we take care of that with the Stimulus, sure thought I saw a lot of signs telling us that what they spent it on, so why are we needing to raise the gas tax? Yet another promise broken by Obama – not raising taxes on the middle class. ROTFLMAO.
While I'm on a roll here how about the Marriage Penalty, Obama wants individuals up to $200K and married couples up to $250K not to pay additional taxes, so two unmarried folks living together (in sin) can make a combined income of $400K (200K each) while a married couple can only drag in $250K so we now have Penalty for being married of $150K – what a wonderful guy to discriminate against folks who do the 'right thing'.
Esten, you're a bright guy, don't tell me you actually believe the Tea Party is an actual political party and not a conservative movement more in tune to the GOP of 20 year ago. So your statement of the Tea Party getting votes on Nov 2nd is inane. Now if you want to talk about candidates they helped elect in the GOP primaries you have a real looser on your hands so break out the plastic for the Toyman's night at Madahos.
Reasons why Tea Baggers irritate the Obama Administration.
Tea Baggers have real jobs in the private sector.
Tea Baggers show up to work on time.
Tea Baggers pay income taxes.
Tea Baggers are not convicted felons.
Tea Baggers are not 3rd generation welfare recipients.
Tea Baggers have not been diagnosed as being mentally challenged.
Tea Baggers are not illegal aliens.
Tea Baggers are not sympathetic towards Muslim terrorists.
Tea Baggers prefer that only US citizens vote in US elections.
Tea Baggers do not physically threaten citizens excercizing their right to vote.
And most importantly.
Tea Baggers have doubts that someone born in Kenya / Indonesia should be eligible to be President of the United States
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 413248]Reasons why Tea Baggers irritate the Obama Administration.
Tea Baggers have real jobs in the private sector.
Tea Baggers show up to work on time.
Tea Baggers pay income taxes.
Tea Baggers are not convicted felons.
Tea Baggers are not 3rd generation welfare recipients.
Tea Baggers have not been diagnosed as being mentally challenged.
Tea Baggers are not illegal aliens.
Tea Baggers are not sympathetic towards Muslim terrorists.
Tea Baggers prefer that only US citizens vote in US elections.
Tea Baggers do not physically threaten citizens excercizing their right to vote.
And most importantly.
Tea Baggers have doubts that someone born in Kenya / Indonesia should be eligible to be President of the United States[/QUOTE]BTW, O'Donnell is only against masturbation because that is the activity that most government employees are engaged in all day long at work. Her position is geared towards getting more (other than spunk) out of the govt.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;413245] Now if you want to talk about candidates they helped elect in the GOP primaries you have a real looser on your hands so break out the plastic for the Toyman's night at Madahos.[/QUOTE]It appears even Esten is starting to feel the wam breeze of change on the way. LOL. Tick! Tick! Tick! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
p. Maybe he hasn't been so influencial as he might have thought, or maybe even MORE! LOL
[QUOTE=Toymann; 413254]It appears even Esten is starting to feel the wam breeze of change on the way. LOL. Tick! Tick! Tick! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Maybe he hasn't been so influencial as he might have thought, or maybe even MORE! LOL[/QUOTE]I volunteer!
I stand by my prediction of 52 Republican seats in the Senate (provided there isn't another Al Franken episode. Which BTW should piss off everyone despite political affiliation).
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413256]I volunteer!
I stand by my prediction of 52 republican seats in the senate (provided there isn't another Al Franken episode. Which BTW should piss off everyone despite political affiliation. [/QUOTE]Once I select my chica, we will tie Esten up, take him back to my apartment and make him watch! A perfect night with a wild-ass liberal IMHO! I may even untie him afterwards. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
p. I knew when he wanted to substitute a different bet he was feeling the inevitable was on the way!
[QUOTE=Schmoj;413242]Not everyone has the luxury of running on the "I'm not a witch / warlock" or the "Masturbation is bad" platform. That is reserved for the Teabag candidates.[/QUOTE]That's it? That's all you got?
Your answer to the fact that 98.4% of Democratic candidates are hiding from their party's signature achievement is to bemoan one Republican candidate's response to a Democratic attack ad?
Man, this is just so weak.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 413265]That's it? That's all you got?
Your answer to the fact that 98.4% of Democratic candidates are hiding from their party's signature achievement is to bemoan one Republican candidate's response to a Democratic attack ad?
Man, this is just so weak.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Actually, you ASSume (emphasis on the ASS) that I am a democrat. I could give a flying fuck about either of the two major parties. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure seem to spew the typical Republican, er I mean teaBAGGER mantras.
Is that all YOU'VE got?
[QUOTE=Schmoj; 413273]Actually, you ASSume (emphasis on the ASS) that I am a democrat. I could give a flying fuck about either of the two major parties. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure seem to spew the typical Republican, er I mean teaBAGGER mantras.
Is that all YOU'VE got? [/QUOTE]Easy, easy, easy! You might get yellow carded.
Jackson - It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called [i]polling[/i] on what moves voters. And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.
Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on. Make no mistake though, the health care reform is indeed landmark legislation that represents a major step forward for the country. Of those who do not like it, some say it did not go far enough, while others are willing to give it a chance to work. It is a minority who favor repeal and replace. I'm looking forward to watching Repubs attempt repeal when Americans will want them focused on jobs and the economy.
BTW - Why are so few Republicans trying to sell voters on Republican leadership by how great the country did in the Bush years? I'm sure that number is less than 5. Talk about thin!
And why is Clinton out campaigning for Dems, but Bush isn't out for Repubs?
[QUOTE=Schmoj; 413273]Actually, you ASSume (emphasis on the ASS) that I am a democrat. I could give a flying fuck about either of the two major parties. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure seem to spew the typical Republican, er I mean teaBAGGER mantras.
Is that all YOU'VE got? [/QUOTE]Scmmoj,
Actually, my post merely responded to your previous statement. I didn't say anything about you being a Democrat or me being a Libertarian, but I understand that no liberal, and I'm calling you a liberal now, would ever let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Now, do you see how I made my point without calling you an asshole or referring to anyone's political party by using a sexual pejorative?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Esten;413277]BTW - Why are so few Republicans trying to sell voters on Republican leadership by how great the country did in the Bush years? I'm sure that number is less than 5. Talk about thin! ?[/QUOTE]News flash: George Bush isn't the President anymore.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 413279]News flash: George Bush isn't the President anymore.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]I think Republicans are hiding from their record under Bush. How a party has performed in the past is absolutely relevant.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;413245]Esten, you're a bright guy, don't tell me you actually believe the Tea Party is an actual political party and not a conservative movement more in tune to the GOP of 20 year ago. So your statement of the Tea Party getting votes on Nov 2nd is inane.[/QUOTE]You should ask Teamann that question!
[QUOTE=Toymann; 413257]Once I select my chica, we will tie Esten up, take him back to my apartment and make him watch! A perfect night with a wild-ass liberal IMHO! I may even untie him afterwards. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. I knew when he wanted to substitute a different bet he was feeling the inevitable was on the way! [/QUOTE]With every passing day, I am beginning to realize what a mistake I made and how I underestimated the American people. Bwahahahhahhahha!
Actually the new bet had nothing to do with my confidence level on the original standing bet. In fact I offered to let it be an additional bet if you wanted. What prompted me to even think of a second bet was when you posted that the Tea Party might get 3 seats in the Senate.
If you win and make me watch, you better hope she is a good one. I will sit there laughing my ass off if she is on the rag, gives a 1-minute CBJ and wants you to hurry up and finish!
PS. I won't call you Teamann if you don't like it. You must admit it's a good fit though.
[QUOTE=Esten; 413281]
If you win and make me watch, you better hope she is a good one. I will sit there laughing my ass off if she is on the rag, gives a 1-minute CBJ and wants you to hurry up and finish!
PS. I won't call you Teamann if you don't like it. You must admit it's a good fit though. [/QUOTE]You forget I live in Montana. Not much religion and plenty of masterbastion! Call me whatever you want. As a Republican I have a great sense of humor. As far as the Madahos chica goes, it will be a good one. COUNT ON IT! Expect a great show! Tick! Tick! Tick!
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
[QUOTE=Esten;413280]How a party has performed in the past is absolutely relevant.[/QUOTE]Yes, and how the Democrats performed in the immediate past will be the most relevant issue on Nov 2nd.
[QUOTE=Esten; 413277]Jackson. It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called [i]polling[/i] on what moves voters.[/quote]That is because they are by and large unprincipled wh*s (and not the good kind) . Men and women of character run on what is right not what is politically expedient. The fact that the legislature has become a road to riches (paved over the Constitution) is at the root of the problem (Harry Reid, anyone. Most in the legislature are there to serve themselves and act according to what will further entrench them in the power and money they so badly desire. The framers didn't envision a professional ruling class, quite the contrary, they intended for the legislature to be a part-time, public service provided by individuals who made their livings doing something else, when not politicking.
[quote=]And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.[/quote]Most voters, vote their gut (most often that gut is in their back pocket or purse. Wallet for those liberal who couldn't follow the nuances) . That gut could be party ticket come hell or high water (both parties have these voters, they are called the bases) or it could be more issue-oriented.
Unprincipled politicians play to constituents' selfish interests (what is going to help or hurt me personally? ) rather than altruistic interests (what is better / worse for the country) and personal self interests (which are decidedly different from selfish interests.
[quote=]Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on.[/quote]So they are so consumed with the good of the nation, they are not going to run on their successes? Who are you? Bob Shrum?
Dems may have run on health care during the campaign but they ran headstrong against the wishes of a plurality of the American public when they ramrodded the legislation through, without a care for the Constitution or the good of the people.
[quote=]Make no mistake though, the health care reform is indeed landmark legislation that represents a major step forward for the country. [/quote]If you actually believe this, you are part of a very small minority, one that will soon be swept from office.
[quote=]Of those who do not like it, some say it did not go far enough, while others are willing to give it a chance to work. It is a minority who favor repeal and replace.[/quote]As the Dems may have run on health care in 2008, the coming legislative, mid-term elections are a national referendum on repealing Obamacare. This is a unique moment when it is the American people running against the Democrats who screwed them on Obamacare, the bailouts and who have prolonged this recession for party and ideological purposes, non of which help to put food on the table or pay the mortgage.
It is odd that while we were promised decreased health care costs, all of the articles that I am seeing are that Obamagare is accelerating the increase of health care costs. This helps to bring real-world-light to the lie that Obamacare is. Maybe that is why so few Democrats are running on this historic legislation. Obamacare, after its repeal, will be seen as a "landmark" in the same way that Pearl Harbor and Iwo Jima are landmarks in US history, they represent tragedies symbolic of great personal suffering and loss from which America emerged stronger and more determined.
We'll see where the majority resides in two weeks.
[quote=] I'm looking forward to watching Repubs attempt repeal when Americans will want them focused on jobs and the economy.[/quote]We will see if they will stand by their principles by how they act and vote. If they do not act as they are now saying that they will, they too should be removed from office.
[quote=]BTW - Why are so few Republicans trying to sell voters on Republican leadership by how great the country did in the Bush years?[/quote]Because during the Bush years there is scant little evidence of Republican's acting and voting as conservatives. Fiscal, legislative and judicial conservatism (as in less govt, more personal responsibility) is what the country desires. The masses are finally seeing that the scare tactics of the left about social conservatism is a canard (less govt intrusion in your private life means more personal freedom, not less. Let's hope it is what they get.
[quote=]And why is Clinton out campaigning for Dems, but Bush isn't out for Repubs?[/QUOTE]You may be too young to remember but there was a time when former presidents retired into obscurity out of respect for the office, the country and their successors. Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush (like them or not) are class individuals who continued and continue this practice, despite what I am sure is a very strong urge to occasionally set the record straight.
This is all you really need to know to understand Esten or, for that matter, any liberal:
[QUOTE=Esten; 413277]Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;413280]I think Republicans are hiding from their record under Bush. How a party has performed in the past is absolutely relevant.[/QUOTE]In other words, Democrats' past transgressions are not relevant; only Republicans' are. My party can say or do anything it wants and should not be held accountable [i]going forward[/i]. But, what the other party did "in the past is absolutely relevant" now.
Unfortunately for Dems and liberals, the voters won't be so easily fooled by this sort of double-speak this time around. Democrats have been trying to come up with a cogent message for months now without success.
Here's the message they need to hear: It's about you, stupid.
Two weeks from now, they'll get the message. Unfortunately, there's little doubt they'll misinterpret it.
"Nobody tell Obama what number comes after a trillion"
Pretty funny. Probably something Johnny Carson would have said if he were still with us.
I am sort of beginning to like this guy Obama. Gracias a Obama we may experience a free fall in the value of the dollar which would rival a roller coaster ride - for free.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 413296]"Nobody tell Obama what number comes after a trillion"
Pretty funny. Probably something Johnny Carson would have said if he were still with us.
I am sort of beginning to like this guy Obama. Gracias a Obama we may experience a free fall in the value of the dollar which would rival a roller coaster ride. For free. [/QUOTE]During the campaign as "reset. "
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413292]In other words, Democrats' past transgressions are not relevant; only Republicans' are. My party can say or do anything it wants and should not be held accountable [i]going forward[/i]. But, what the other party did "in the past is absolutely relevant" now.[/QUOTE]Stan it is clear to everyone you have a huge chip on your shoulder about Democrats.
Your statement above is your own creation and nothing more. And it isn't even logical.
Jackson asked why health care reform wasn't a midterm campaign focus for Dems. I provided an answer. Nowhere in what I wrote did I say or imply Repubs weren't entitled to campaign against the Dems health care reform. You are just indulging in willful distortion.
Both parties have the equal right to campaign on their past record, their opponent's past record, their future vision and their opponent's future vision.
[url]http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/48517[/url]
Hopefully We're getting close to the MotherFucker.
Exon
PS --- You might have to copy and paste the above
My CockSucker Friend like's post's identified before the link is validated, its link to the B. A. Herald
[QUOTE=Exon123; 413309][url]http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/48517[/url]
Hopefully We're getting close to the MotherFucker.
Exon.
PS. You might have to copy and paste the above.
My CockSucker Friend like's post's identified before the link is validated, its link to the B. A. Herald[/QUOTE]Jackson,
This new program is amazing, its self editing
I was just scaning the polls and Rasmussin has O'Donnel at only 11 points behind in DE. Considering she was nearly 20 points down last week, she seems to be gaining ground. With Halloween comming up just before the election, who knows DE may be in the Pot for the Republicians after all!
[QUOTE=Esten;413308]Jackson asked why health care reform wasn't a midterm campaign focus for Dems. I provided an answer. Nowhere in what I wrote did I say or imply Repubs weren't entitled to campaign against the Dems health care reform. You are just indulging in willful distortion.[/QUOTE]No willful distortion here. You need to look in the mirror to find that. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, and using your own words to do it.
Jackson posted that, if ObamaCare was such a monumental achievement, Democrats wouldn't be running away from the issue. You claimed, lamely, that it wasn't relevant because it was in the past, and Democrats were only focusing on forward-looking events. They aren't running away from their sponsorship of ObamaCare, you claimed, but were only focusing on going-forward issues. Then, about two posts later, you claimed that what a Republican President has done in the past was "absolutely relevant" to this campaign, and Republicans were hiding from this.
Your hypocrisy is plain for all to see. I just linked it together. You can't wish it away, just like your Democratic brethren can't wish away their support of ObamaCare.
And, your point about Republicans running from Bush's record is absolutely false. They're running right at it. That's much of what the tea party is about. Taking back the party from free spending Republicans. That's one big difference between Republicans and Democrats this term. Most Democrats are trying to sweep the past under the rug by ignoring their support of ObamaCare. Don't talk about it and maybe the voters won't notice. The Republicans, by contrast, had what is akin to a civil war within the party. They absolutely faced up to the fact that they were complicit with the misguided spending while Bush was President, even though Democrats controlled Congress (the purse strings) for Bush's second term. But, despite media hopes and predictions that it would split the party, they are emerging stronger for it.
I make no predictions whether a Republican controlled House. Which is inevitable at this point. Will be able to significantly cut spending. But, it is quite obvious that a Republic-controlled House will not waste the trillions that Democrats have wasted while they were in control, will not spend anywhere near what a Democrat-controlled House would have, and will not permit to pass the sort of misguided legislation that Nancy Pelosi allowed, and that her colleagues are now running from. That's "Change" enough for me. Rome wasn't built in a day.
As far as having a chip on my shoulder about Democrats, I do. The current crop in the House and Senate are largely a bunch of liars. Populists who will say and do nearly anything to get votes. I have the same contempt for many Republicans currently in office, including John Boehner who will be Speaker next term. These Republicans are still politicians. And so, not to be trusted with your wallet. They're just not as hypocritical as Democrats.
Stan I have to differ with your regarding the Tea Party and Bush era Republicans. I believe they identify more with the Reagan "Big Tent" Republicans of yesteryear
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413325]No willful distortion here. You need to look in the mirror to find that. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, and using your own words to do it.[/QUOTE]Nah... you continue to spin.
I explained that Dems were focused on forward-looking events because their polling has likely shown that is what will move voters the most. The popularity of health care reform is split no doubt, but even if it were broadly popular that would still not make it a winning campaign message right now. Voters are most concerned about jobs, the economy and the direction of the country.
How a party has done in the past is always relevant, and worthy of being used in campaigns. As is a party's future vision. But what ends up being used in a campaign is determined by polling.
If the polls say that this election most folks are concerned about jobs and the economy, why would Dems focus on health care?
However, if someone wants to frame it that Dems are hiding from something, I can do the same for Repubs.
BTW, in contrast to Republican dismay of the Bush years, Dems who voted for the PPACA are proud of it. Then why don't they run on it? Because voters are more concerned about other things right now, see above. Feel free to look that up if you like. And this is the same reason Americans will have little patience with House Republicans wasting time on repeal.
Your comment on populists is also interesting. I think most agree that health care reform was a tough slog for Dems. They persisted not because of their arrogance, but because they believed it was important and that they were elected to do it. Not unlike Tea Partiers who stand up for their beliefs, which I respect. Though present, there is more than just populism in politics.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;413316]I was just scaning the polls and Rasmussin has O'Donnel at only 11 points behind in DE. Considering she was nearly 20 points down last week, she seems to be gaining ground. With Halloween comming up just before the election, who knows DE may be int he Pot for the Republicians after all![/QUOTE]Rasmussin, bwahahahahaha!
But to your point, I agree. O'Donnell's demonstration of her deep understanding of the Constitution could close the gap.
[QUOTE=Esten; 413330]Rasmussin, bwahahahahaha!
But to your point, I agree. O'Donnell's demonstration of her deep understanding of the Constitution could close the gap. [/QUOTE]You were about to expose your ignorance of the Constitution. By all means, please elaborate.
[QUOTE=Exon123; 413310]Jackson,
This new program is amazing, its self editing[/QUOTE]Exon,
It only edits your posts.
Everybody else already knows how to write.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Esten;413329]Voters are most concerned about jobs, the economy and the direction of the country.[/QUOTE]Esten,
The voters were worried about "[I]jobs, the economy and the direction of the country[/I]" two years ago, and in the interim the Democrats failed miserably to deliver on these concerns because they were single-mindedly focused on accomplishing their long-held philosophical goal of taking over and destroying the world's most advanced private health care system.
Now do you see how it's all connected?
Thanks,
Jackson
Esten, Mongers, et al-
I am generally anti-Republican but the Rush Limbaugh Fox News Robots who drivel all over this thread are right about one thing: the health care bill, "ObamaCare" as you will, is an absolute disgrace. Trillions of soon to be as worthless as toilet paper dollars will be spent trying to implement an ineffective bill so long winded and convoluted that the congressmen who voted for it did not even bother to read it in its entirety. The only thing of any worth in the bill is the banning of exclusion of insurance customers on the basis of pre-existing conditions. That fix should have been made into law on its own without the filth that came along with it. The US needs a taxpayer funded public option of minimum quality healthcare available to all that operates parallel to the existing private system for those who choose to utilize it (like NHS v. Private practice in the UK, Public Hospitals v. Swiss Medical, etc in AR, Public Hospitals v. Albert Einstein, etc in Brasil. The doctors working in this public system would earn a public sector salary and would receive a free medical schooling at a public university in exchange for working in the public system on a public sector wage for a determined number of years. Almost like military academies for doctors.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 413334]Esten, Mongers, et al-
I am generally anti-Republican but the Rush Limbaugh Fox News Robots who drivel all over this thread are right about one thing: the health care bill, "ObamaCare" as you will, is an absolute disgrace. Trillions of soon to be as worthless as toilet paper dollars will be spent trying to implement an ineffective bill so long winded and convoluted that the congressmen who voted for it did not even bother to read it in its entirety. The only thing of any worth in the bill is the banning of exclusion of insurance customers on the basis of pre-existing conditions. That fix should have been made into law on its own without the filth that came along with it. The US needs a taxpayer funded public option of minimum quality healthcare available to all that operates parallel to the existing private system for those who choose to utilize it (like NHS v. Private practice in the UK, Public Hospitals v. Swiss Medical, etc in AR, Public Hospitals v. Albert Einstein, etc in Brasil. The doctors working in this public system would earn a public sector salary and would receive a free medical schooling at a public university in exchange for working in the public system on a public sector wage for a determined number of years. Almost like military academies for doctors.
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Was back in in LA for a month recently, alot of closed storefronts and restaurents were real slow. The Korean spa that I frequent reduced it's rates. Could not wait to get out of town even it was nice to see family, friends and colleagues. Pretty depressing, and the word that pop into my mind to describe America today is dysfunctional. The Health Care Bill was a result of both parents fighting and spending a fortune for custody, and in the process, both the victor and vanquished came out of the process, bankrupt and bitter. As for the child, you can only guess, he was the sideshow
So no use pointing fingers, and pretending your way is only the way to save America. Bickering partinsanship is going to drag us down to our knees. Neither party can bring us back to the days when we could hitchike across the country without fear of disappearing from the face of the earth. And once upon a time, there was something called civility, a striving for the common good. Most on the Board, sadly, does not know what that means.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413340]And once upon a time, there was something called civility, a striving for the common good. Most on the Board, sadly, does not know what that means.[/QUOTE]Black Shirt,
I take exception to your statement. All things considered, I think the political discussions here are relatively civilized.
Of course, from some liberal's perspective, any venue that permits conservatives and libertarians to have an equal voice is [I]de facto[/I] "uncivil".
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 413348]Black Shirt,
I take exception to your statement. All things considered, I think the political discussions here are relatively civilized.
Of course, from some liberal's perspective, any venue that permits conservatives and libertarians to have an equal voice is [I]de facto[/I] "uncivil".
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]My fault, what I was trying to infer was that the Board is a reflection of where American culture is at the moment, and more specifically, where the political culture is right now. From past postings by you and others, it seems that we are in agreement that our representatives in Washington are a degraded lot, yet the Board is just as jingonistic, parroting pretty much the propoganda emitting from the landfill. And I am not going the route of "I am not liberal" or "I am not a republican" bullshit.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413350]My fault, what I was trying to infer was that the Board is a reflection of where American culture is at the moment, and more specifically, where the political culture is right now. From past postings by you and others, it seems that we are in agreement that our representatives in Washington are a degraded lot, yet the Board is just as jingonistic, parroting pretty much the propoganda emitting from the landfill. And I am not going the route of "I am not liberal" or "I am not a republican" bullshit.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, that's a cop out. Anyone can characterize any opinion as "propaganda, " but that doesn't make it so. The country does have a problem with spending. Some here thought the stimulus was necessary; others thought it was unnecessary and wasteful. That doesn't make either position propaganda.
Some here thought health care reform was necessary; others thought it unnecessary or, to the extent necessary, that the plan enacted went too far. That doesn't make either position propaganda.
Some favored Cash for Clunkers; others opposed. Some like Obama and what he stands for; others disagree. Some think Democrats and the left are wrong for the country and articulate why; others think Republicans and the right are a mistake and have articulated their position why. Some think Republicans were responsible for the housing mess; others think Democrats were responsible. Both sides have aired their reasons. None of this is propoganda. Heck, I've even asked anyone to articulate why government unions are necessary, when compared with the traditional justifications for unions (to equalize the bargaining power with capital) and no one's ever bothered to respond.
Again, you can label anything you want as propaganda, including the facts that go into the debate, and there have been plenty of facts provided here. You can disagree with opinions voiced here and not care to read them or respond. If that's true, then why read this thread? If facts and opinions are all propaganda, then this thread isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the need to complain about it and label it as such.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413353]With all due respect, that's a cop out. Anyone can characterize any opinion as "propaganda, " but that doesn't make it so. The country does have a problem with spending. Some here thought the stimulus was necessary; others thought it was unnecessary and wasteful. That doesn't make either position propaganda.
Some here thought health care reform was necessary; others thought it unnecessary or, to the extent necessary, that the plan enacted went too far. That doesn't make either position propaganda.
Some favored Cash for Clunkers; others opposed. Some like Obama and what he stands for; others disagree. Some think Democrats and the left are wrong for the country and articulate why; others think Republicans and the right are a mistake and have articulated their position why. Some think Republicans were responsible for the housing mess; others think Democrats were responsible. Both sides have aired their reasons. None of this is propoganda. Heck, I've even asked anyone to articulate why government unions are necessary, when compared with the traditional justifications for unions (to equalize the bargaining power with capital) and no one's ever bothered to respond.
Again, you can label anything you want as propaganda, including the facts that go into the debate, and there have been plenty of facts provided here. You can disagree with opinions voiced here and not care to read them or respond. If that's true, then why read this thread? If facts and opinions are all propaganda, then this thread isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the need to complain about it and label it as such. [/QUOTE]Again referring to the mess in Washington, if anything is going to get done for you and me, there has to be compromise. We need people who at the end of a hard and vigororous campaign or debate jettisan their partisanship and get on with what's best for the country. We are so f-up.
People post on this thread with different motivations and agendas. Just IMHO, we don't need to play politics here, too. Not complaining, just an observation.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413354]Again referring to the mess in Washington, if anything is going to get done for you and me, there has to be compromise. We need people who at the end of a hard and vigororous campaign or debate jettisan their partisanship and get on with what's best for the country.[/QUOTE]Fair enough, but "compromise" doesn't get you very far. Again, I don't mean any disrespect whatsoever, but that's the propaganda. Just saying "compromise" is meaningless.
I dealt with that word on a daily basis in my past life as a lawyer. If one side's asking for $1.5 million and the other is offering $50,000, they need to "compromise" to reach a deal. But that doesn't really say anything. It's certainly not "meet in the middle, " because any sap can figure out that you ought to start higher next time, or lower, depending on which side you're on. So, the "compromise where" is the issue, and where non-monetary items are at stake, it's "compromise on what. "
And, even that's not saying much. If one side just tosses an issue out there and says that 'this issue is important to my constituents or my party' does that mean the other side should or must compromise? Certainly not. It's the same dynamic as above: If that's the game, then just throw all your issues out there and make incremental progress toward your position each time you do so. But that clearly can't work.
I'm not trying to be patronizing. I know you know this. But, the idea that folks in Congress need to compromise is a bit facile. Compromise on what, and compromise where, is what all the hollering is about. And, of course, that certainly doesn't mean the two sides will reach an agreement. Sometimes, no deal is the best deal, at least from my perspective.
Rather than seeing compromise, I would prefer to see both sides make an effort at stripping everything down from the federal budget, then adding back what's essential, and finally adding back what we can afford. The latter is where the fight would be, but that would be a fight worth having. I know: Much easier said than done, and a pipe dream at that. But, if they expect me to pay higher taxes, then I'd like them to first justify why they need them.
I'll give you one real world example of why the whole process is messed up from my perspective. I have a former friend who hasn't filed a tax return in 25 years. This person has made over six figures a year, and sometimes well in excess of six figures, for a majority of that time. Usually, about six or seven years after the fact, a federal or state agency will notice that he hasn't filed taxes, and they'll start filing liens and doing levies at the companies from which he draws income. Right now, the state entity is finally catching up to 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 tax years. He owes over $300,000 for those years, and this is just to the state taxing authority. I know because I've seen the levies. The feds still aren't even in the picture, even though he's never filed a return there, either. Frankly, it's appalling. The guy's not a tax protester. He just never bothers to file. He's gone through the compromise process with the IRS and state taxing authorities two times over the past 20 years, where he essentially cuts a check to compromise the penalties and back taxes for the preceding 7-8 years. This will be the third time when he eventually gets around to it, if [i]they[/i] Eventually get around to it.
Wouldn't you think either the state agency or feds would track the guy after the first time he went 6-7 years without paying taxes? How about after the second time? Or, maybe you'd think that they would check on subsequent years when they realized that he never paid taxes for 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002? Or, maybe you'd think that the state and federal agencies might coordinate their efforts? Nope on all of the above.
And, he's never served a day in jail for tax evasion. Know why? Because signing and knowingly filing a false tax return is a felony; but failing to file a return is a misdemeanor. If you don't file, you never sign anything where you swear, under penalty of perjury, that your numbers are correct. So, what's the lesson here?
That's a small example. It's anecdotal, I know, but I've got dozens more I could relate. My point is: Before they come trying to pick my pockets further, they need to get their own house in order. Government has become the problem.
I have to agree with Stan on the compromise issue. The true definition of compromise is both parties leave the table dissatisfied (rather to a more or less equal extent is debatable)
IMHO spending must stop, period. What we as a country want and what we can afford have become so divergent if we continue on this course we will end up like Greece with debt greater than our GDP. The economy is not recovering (remember according to the eggheads the recession ended over a year ago) and simply can not sustain the level of social programs the dumbasses in Washington continue to attempt to purchase votes with. A good example is the $250 rebate to seniors since there has been no COLA for two years, politics at its lowest and both parties participate but it seems to be the Democrats who have been purchasing votes with social programs longer than the Republicans.
Look at England, Germany and France, semi-socialist countries, even they understand that spending has to be cut and are taking the very unpopular steps to reduce spending. When was the last time Europe was ahead of the US in economic policy? I don't remember a case where this has happened until now. We spent our way into this mess and there is no way we are going to spend our way out.
Maybe we should strip the budget to its base elements (borders, national defense, ect) but what I would suggest is to keep the 'social programs' which have been funded via payroll taxes for years which are Medicaid and Social Security. Point of fact had the Democrats not moved Social Security funds into the general budget in the 50's, these programs would be solvent today and for years to come. Medicaid and other unfunded social programs need to be returned to the states to administer as each state sees fit and not the federal government.
While government by its very nature is inefficient at least the closer to the people governed it is the more efficient is appears to be. An excellent example was presented by Stan regarding delinquent taxes – who was at the door first and continues to be there for payment – the state and not the IRS.