Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 3:32 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:50 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
I did something that I would not have done in past years. I watched the Iowa debates for the straw pole.

The most depressing thing that night was when asked to raise your hand if you would refuse to vote for a deal that would cut spending by ten times a tax increase (10-1 ratio) AND EVERY ONE OF THE EIGHT RAISED THEIR HAND.

See any compromise there folks?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3414
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
Two things that really bug me about the Republican party (amongst others):

1.) If they stand for a less intrusive goverment, or a smaller goverment, or getting big government out of people's lives, why then do they make the social issues such a big deal? Like abortion, same sex marraige, etc.? Why do they make religion such a big deal? They are the party that enbraces the religious right.

2.) Big business is very important to the American economy but not at the cost of the middle class. Why don't the Republicans favor a more balanced tax code where big business pays their fair share in taxes?

Political parties should govern the country. Manage the day to day affairs of running the country. They should not get involved in anything else but that as far as I'm concerned.

The Republicans bring to the table more "hidden" agendas than do the Democrats.

Because of what I have previously stated, I never supported and will not support the Republican party.

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3414
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
PS: I've always admired Abraham Lincoln. I thought he was a great man and a great President. And, I've often wondered what he would think of the Republican Party if he were alive today. :?

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 517
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
bassoondirector wrote:
PS: I've always admired Abraham Lincoln. I thought he was a great man and a great President. And, I've often wondered what he would think of the Republican Party if he were alive today. :?


Not many of us have been around as long as you, Tom. :lol:

_________________
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - William Shakespeare


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3414
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
:lol:

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:00 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3708
Location: Economy, PA
Substitute2 wrote:
I did something that I would not have done in past years. I watched the Iowa debates for the straw pole.

The most depressing thing that night was when asked to raise your hand if you would refuse to vote for a deal that would cut spending by ten times a tax increase (10-1 ratio) AND EVERY ONE OF THE EIGHT RAISED THEIR HAND.

See any compromise there folks?


The candidates were simply declaring themselves as being philosophically opposed to a tax increase, as any Republican would. That is basic politicking and has nothing to do with actual governance. Or compromise for that matter.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
bassoondirector wrote:
Two things that really bug me about the Republican party (amongst others):

1.) If they stand for a less intrusive goverment, or a smaller goverment, or getting big government out of people's lives, why then do they make the social issues such a big deal? Like abortion, same sex marraige, etc.? Why do they make religion such a big deal? They are the party that enbraces the religious right.

2.) Big business is very important to the American economy but not at the cost of the middle class. Why don't the Republicans favor a more balanced tax code where big business pays their fair share in taxes?

Political parties should govern the country. Manage the day to day affairs of running the country. They should not get involved in anything else but that as far as I'm concerned.

The Republicans bring to the table more "hidden" agendas than do the Democrats.

Because of what I have previously stated, I never supported and will not support the Republican party.


Republicans don't want small government. Republicans want big government and democrats want bigger government.

Or, put another way, Republicans want to tell you how to live, and democrats want to take all your money so that you can't live.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3414
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
I agree BBF with your statement to a point. But, I also believe that taxes are needed for services that the national government should provide. To what degree or how much people are taxed is I think the issue.

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 6:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
bassoondirector wrote:
Two things that really bug me about the Republican party (amongst others):

1.) If they stand for a less intrusive goverment, or a smaller goverment, or getting big government out of people's lives, why then do they make the social issues such a big deal? Like abortion, same sex marraige, etc.? Why do they make religion such a big deal? They are the party that enbraces the religious right.

2.) Big business is very important to the American economy but not at the cost of the middle class. Why don't the Republicans favor a more balanced tax code where big business pays their fair share in taxes?

Political parties should govern the country. Manage the day to day affairs of running the country. They should not get involved in anything else but that as far as I'm concerned.

The Republicans bring to the table more "hidden" agendas than do the Democrats.

Because of what I have previously stated, I never supported and will not support the Republican party.

BD, I just stumbled onto this thread and wanted to offer a reply that might cause you to think a little more deeply without being seen as disrespectful to your undoubtedly sincerely held beliefs.

For starters, you posit a myth: that the Republican Party embraces the religious right. No it doesn’t. The religious right embarrasses the party establishment, which, truth be told, doesn’t differ much from the Democrats in practical terms. The party elites look down upon religious conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

Religious conservatives know this perfectly well and it angers the hell out of them. Without their votes, Republican candidates wouldn't win many elections. You may not know this, but there is a war on for the soul of the Republican Party. In time, the elites probably will lose influence, and Republicanism again will come to mean what it’s supposed to mean – the conservative alternative to liberalism.

Unlike the establishment, conservatives believe the social issues are crucially important. That is their right, you know. To them, much of the moral fiber of this country already has been eaten away by cultural rot and liberal government policies. This is why they oppose abortion on demand, contraception on demand, legalization of marijuana, pornography, and same-sex marriage. They believe that without moral fiber the United States will have lost what made it the most exceptional nation in human history. I am a conservative and I don’t give a damn what people do to themselves or each other in the privacy of their own homes. If it’s inimical to their best interests, that’s their problem. Just do not ask me to vote for it or expect me to be happy about paying for it.

And as far as religion is concerned, whether it’s a big deal -- as you put it -- is in the eye of the beholder. Many a mainline denomination is led by people who’ve sold out to liberalism. So, to many conservatives, identifying with a particular faith for any reason other than spiritual comfort is an emotional investment that isn’t going to yield much of a return. Why do you think the evangelical movements have grown so large?

As for big business: Why does its success have to be at the expense of the middle or any other class? The most successful corporations fall into the 35 percent federal tax bracket – second highest in the world (after Japan) among industrialized nations. That’s not fair enough? Even Barack Obama has said publicly it’s too high. And you can add state and local taxes on top of that. Corporations exploit as many loopholes as possible because that’s what their competitors do. Would you consider Warren Buffett a big businessman? He's a Democrat, major contributor to Democratic candidates, and consultant to Obama. And he owes the IRS $1 billion in income taxes dating back to 2002, which he is doing everything he can to avoid paying. So are you prepared to be critical of him? Or of General Electric, which Obama clearly has chosen as his favorite corporation? GE made a reported $14.2 billion profit in 2010, on which it paid nothing – $0.00 – in federal income tax.

News flash: Big corporations are run by Democrats too.

Finally, to your point about managing the day-to-day affairs of the country and nothing more: Do you honestly believe that is what Obama has been about? If you do, unfortunately you are sadly misguided. I assume you voted for him; did it occur to you that he would have hidden agendas? Like, telling the Russians he’d be more flexible on missile defense once he is reelected. Or allowing American guns to go to Mexican drug gangs. Or ordering Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception. Or taking the student loan business away from private-sector banks. And even mundane stuff, such as trying to forbid farm families from assigning chores to their kids. He has done every one of those things.

I could go on.

My point: You’ll be a better-informed citizen if you take the time to learn what’s really going on rather than swallowing whole what the news media are telling you.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
Unlike the establishment, conservatives believe the social issues are crucially important. That is their right, you know. To them, much of the moral fiber of this country already has been eaten away by cultural rot and liberal government policies.

Or, in other words, policies that get big government out of people's lives.

Bob in Boston wrote:
This is why they oppose abortion on demand, contraception on demand, legalization of marijuana, pornography, and same-sex marriage. They believe that without moral fiber the United States will have lost what made it the most exceptional nation in human history. I am a conservative and I don’t give a damn what people do to themselves or each other in the privacy of their own homes. If it’s inimical to their best interests, that’s their problem. Just do not ask me to vote for it or expect me to be happy about paying for it.

Please explain how each of the underlined items would be paid for by religious conservatives if they were to come to pass, because I don't see it. However, I do see how legal enforcement of policies opposing said items is paid for by the general public, and resources earmarked for such policies comprise a significant portion of the government budget.

This is the apparent hypocrisy that BD was identifying. Religious conservatives claim they hate big government and want to promote freedom of choice, but when it comes to social issues, they love big government and want it to dictate how people should live. And when they claim that they don't like liberal policies because they would be too costly on the public, they forget or ignore the wanton spending that takes place to pay for conservative policies (see the War on Drugs; the Iraq War; the War in Afghanistan). I share BD's frustration with religious conservatives, as they apparently want big government out of people's lives, except when they don't.

Bob in Boston wrote:
As for big business: Why does its success have to be at the expense of the middle or any other class?

It doesn't. The problem is that, under the status quo, the upper class is making money hand-over-fist while the middle and lower class are suffering. And every conservative policy offered thus far appears to do nothing to address this problem; if anything, they would appear to exacerbate the problem.

Bob in Boston wrote:
Corporations exploit as many loopholes as possible because that’s what their competitors do. Would you consider Warren Buffett a big businessman? He's a Democrat, major contributor to Democratic candidates, and consultant to Obama. And he owes the IRS $1 billion in income taxes dating back to 2002, which he is doing everything he can to avoid paying.

This is screaming for a citation.

Bob in Boston wrote:
So are you prepared to be critical of him? Or of General Electric, which Obama clearly has chosen as his favorite corporation? GE made a reported $14.2 billion profit in 2010, on which it paid nothing – $0.00 – in federal income tax.

This is too, though not the zero taxes part -- the "Obama's favorite corporation" part.

Bob in Boston wrote:
Finally, to your point about managing the day-to-day affairs of the country and nothing more: Do you honestly believe that is what Obama has been about? If you do, unfortunately you are sadly misguided. I assume you voted for him; did it occur to you that he would have hidden agendas? Like, telling the Russians he’d be more flexible on missile defense once he is reelected. Or allowing American guns to go to Mexican drug gangs. Or ordering Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception. Or taking the student loan business away from private-sector banks. And even mundane stuff, such as trying to forbid farm families from assigning chores to their kids. He has done every one of those things.

I'd love to hear what you think the underlying motives for these things are.

Bob in Boston wrote:
My point: You’ll be a better-informed citizen if you take the time to learn what’s really going on rather than swallowing whole what the news media are telling you.

Which includes Fox News, Drudge Report, and every other conservative rag publication on the internet. I suggest that you follow your own advice.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:19 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Really, Willton, don’t you ever tire of trying to prove to everybody how brilliant you are? You and I had this exchange once before. Your tactics are just as tiresome now as they were back then.

I’m a conservative; deal with it. You are a liberal. You ought to admit it; it’ll be – heh, heh – liberating for you.

So, you want attribution for the Buffett tax bill issue – other than from Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the conservative online rags, of course? How about Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report? You’ll find it on Page 54 of the 2010 issue. Here’s the URL: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf

But for your convenience I’ve excerpted it here:

Quote:
(15) Income taxes (Continued)
We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and in state, local and foreign jurisdictions. We are under examination by the taxing authorities in many of these jurisdictions. With few exceptions, we have settled tax return liabilities with U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax authorities for years before 2002. We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years. It is reasonably possible that certain of our income tax examinations will be settled within the next twelve months. We currently believe that there are no jurisdictions in which the outcome of unresolved issues or claims is likely to be material to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

At December 31, 2010 and 2009, net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million and $926 million, respectively. Included in the balance at December 31, 2010, are $774 million of tax positions that, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate. The remaining balance in net unrecognized tax benefits principally relates to tax positions for which the ultimate deductibility is highly certain but for which there is uncertainty about the timing of such deductibility. Because of the impact of deferred tax accounting, other than interest and penalties, the disallowance of the shorter deductibility period would not affect the annual effective tax rate but would accelerate the payment of cash to the taxing authority to an earlier period. As of December 31, 2010, we do not expect any material changes to the estimated amount of unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.


As to the point about General Electric being Barack Obama’s favorite corporation, perhaps you’d be persuaded by the fact that its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, serves as chairman of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, formerly the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Not enough for you? Well, there's also the fawning coverage the administration enjoys daily on NBC and MSNBC, whose corporate parent is, of course, GE. And this: http://www.marcgunther.com/2010/01/31/ge-and-washington-too-cozy/ , which details the numerous categories of “clean energy” projects to which Obama has given hundreds of millions of dollars – if not more – in stimulus funding and for many of which GE just happens to be the leading manufacturer. Or this: http://townhall.com/columnists/timcarney/2011/01/25/government_electric/page/full/ . Then, too, you could Google "MyPlate Button" and bring it all the way down to the level of silliness. There, you would learn how proudly GE worked with the administration to design a new feature on its microwave ovens, so users can more easily heat up Michelle Obama’s suggested healthy-diet meals.

And where do you get off demanding an explanation from me about how conservatives would pay for your underscored – and that is the precise term, incidentally, not “underlined” – items should they come to pass? How about you explain to me the justification for wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on liberal green energy projects for which there’s no market (see Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Nevada Geothermal, A123 Systems, First Solar, Willard & Kelsey Solar Group, Babcock & Brown, Beacon Power, Solar Trust of America, Fisker Automotive, and the Chevy Volt)? Go ahead: Look ‘em up. Their tales of woe aren’t hard to find.

While you’re at it, please also detail the benefits of spending still more billions in stimulus money on “shovel-ready jobs,” such as replacing the windows at the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument visitors center, which has been closed since 2007. And the $750,000 it cost to convert the streetlights from conventional bulbs to LED – in Hanover, MN, a town of 2,500 people. And this one's particularly critical to the national economy: an Indiana University study on why young men don’t like to use condoms.

By the way, I’d be careful about invoking the “War in Afghanistan” if I were you. Obama has had 3-1/2 years to end it. But we’re still there, you know – still losing American blood and treasure by the week.

So religious onservatives frustrate you, eh? Go complain to someone who cares. My original post wasn’t directed to you. But thanks for playing anyway.

Oh, and when I want suggestions from you as to which news sources I should use, I’ll be in touch. Until then, consider yourself dismissed -- and take your snotty attitude with you on the way out.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
Really, Willton, don’t you ever tire of trying to prove to everybody how brilliant you are? You and I had this exchange once before. Your tactics are just as tiresome now as they were back then.

Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to let you post about the greatness of religious conservatives unchallenged? Yeah, I didn't get that memo.

Bob in Boston wrote:
I’m a conservative; deal with it. You are a liberal. You ought to admit it; it’ll be – heh, heh – liberating for you.

Oh, you're so clever. You should work in journalism. Those folks love puns.

I wasn't posting to convince you of your folly; I posted merely to illuminate it for others to see.

As for whether I am a liberal, I get that same label from other staunch conservatives like you. On the flip side, I get labeled a conservative by staunch liberals like my wife. It's ridiculous. I've come to the conclusion that no one is apparently allowed to take a moderate position on anything, and no one is apparently allowed to question the extreme positions held by the most vocal of any particular party without being labeled some sort of heretic. It's no wonder why we have such bitter divides between the two prevailing political parties: they apparently do not accept that anyone can have moderate beliefs.

Bob in Boston wrote:
So, you want attribution for the Buffett tax bill issue – other than from Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the conservative online rags, of course? How about Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report? You’ll find it on Page 54 of the 2010 issue. Here’s the URL: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf

What I find interesting is that you claim Berkshire Hathaway owes $1B in back taxes, when the excerpt indicates that Berkshire Hathaway is merely disputing how much it owes under the US tax code. Your comments implied that Berkshire Hathaway is practicing tax evasion, but I certainly do not gather that from the information you posted. What I see is a very public disagreement as to whether Berkshire Hathaway owes what the IRS says it owes in taxes. Last I checked, such disputes are legal.

Bob in Boston wrote:
As to the point about General Electric being Barack Obama’s favorite corporation, perhaps you’d be persuaded by the fact that its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, serves as chairman of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, formerly the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Not enough for you? Well, there's also the fawning coverage the administration enjoys daily on NBC and MSNBC, whose corporate parent is, of course, GE. And this: http://www.marcgunther.com/2010/01/31/ge-and-washington-too-cozy/ , which details the numerous categories of “clean energy” projects to which Obama has given hundreds of millions of dollars – if not more – in stimulus funding and for many of which GE just happens to be the leading manufacturer. Or this: http://townhall.com/columnists/timcarney/2011/01/25/government_electric/page/full/ . Then, too, you could Google "MyPlate Button" and bring it all the way down to the level of silliness. There, you would learn how proudly GE worked with the administration to design a new feature on its microwave ovens, so users can more easily heat up Michelle Obama’s suggested healthy-diet meals.

All of this is very interesting. But I'm curious as to why you think any of this is bad? Is it bad that GE has elected to participate in these types of government projects? Or are you alleging cronyism on behalf of the Obama Administration? Further, is this relationship more or less objectionable than the Bush Administration's relationship with Halliburton? Would you prefer that the U.S. government have no interaction with private businesses?

Bob in Boston wrote:
And where do you get off demanding an explanation from me about how conservatives would pay for your underscored – and that is the precise term, incidentally, not “underlined” – items should they come to pass?

From the very words you used in your post. You said that religious conservatives "oppose abortion on demand, contraception on demand, legalization of marijuana, pornography, and same-sex marriage," and that they should not be asked or expected "to vote for it" or "to be happy about paying for it." I get the voting part; that's your choice. But I am mystified by the notion that any one of the foregoing policies would be paid for using public monies. Frankly, the idea that lifting prohibitions on any of the foregoing policies would cost taxpayers money is just silly. But I present you with the opportunity to explain yourself.

Bob in Boston wrote:
How about you explain to me the justification for wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on liberal green energy projects for which there’s no market (see Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Nevada Geothermal, A123 Systems, First Solar, Willard & Kelsey Solar Group, Babcock & Brown, Beacon Power, Solar Trust of America, Fisker Automotive, and the Chevy Volt)? Go ahead: Look ‘em up. Their tales of woe aren’t hard to find.

Actually, the justifications are quite simple: economic stimulus combined with the funding of research and development of new technology, which are common justifications for government spending in any administration. Whether the provision of such money was a wise choice is a different matter, but the justifications are there nonetheless. If you want to find similar types of spending done by conservative administrations, look no further than NASA.

Bob in Boston wrote:
While you’re at it, please also detail the benefits of spending still more billions in stimulus money on “shovel-ready jobs,” such as replacing the windows at the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument visitors center, which has been closed since 2007. And the $750,000 it cost to convert the streetlights from conventional bulbs to LED – in Hanover, MN, a town of 2,500 people. And this one's particularly critical to the national economy: an Indiana University study on why young men don’t like to use condoms.

I can't. That is the unfortunate result of pork barrel legislation, which has been a problem for every Congress and President since at least the 90's, which is when I started paying attention. I'm sure that Obama carries some of the blame for allowing such legislation to go through. But if you start blaming him, you have to also blame every one of his predecessors in the White House for allowing similar pet projects to pass, including your likely hero, Ron Reagan.

Bob in Boston wrote:
By the way, I’d be careful about invoking the “War in Afghanistan” if I were you. Obama has had 3-1/2 years to end it. But we’re still there, you know – still losing American blood and treasure by the week.

Last I checked, Obama did reach an agreement in April 2012 with Afghanistan to wind down the war. I saw no such moves conducted under the previous administration.

Bob in Boston wrote:
So religious onservatives frustrate you, eh? Go complain to someone who cares. My original post wasn’t directed to you. But thanks for playing anyway.

Oh, and when I want suggestions from you as to which news sources I should use, I’ll be in touch. Until then, consider yourself dismissed -- and take your snotty attitude with you on the way out.

Snotty attitude? Oh, you wound me.

As I said earlier, I did not post what I posted for your benefit. And as for who your intended target was for your post, that's bullshit. You posted in a forum that is viewable by anyone with an internet connection; clearly you wanted multiple people to read it. If you want to have a private conversation with Bassoon, feel free to use the PM function on this board. But don't be surprised if someone who finds your positions objectionable raises those objections in the forum in which you posted.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:04 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Bob just read your post. Please re-read it from an objective (journalist) view and see if it might be just a little condesending toward BD. You start out trying to sound like a reasonable person but end up preaching to the lowly, ignorant American who has the wrong ideas.

Are you a frustrated teacher? Or just a closed minded right winger?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Debate?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:06 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Substitute2 wrote:
I did something that I would not have done in past years. I watched the Iowa debates for the straw pole.

The most depressing thing that night was when asked to raise your hand if you would refuse to vote for a deal that would cut spending by ten times a tax increase (10-1 ratio) AND EVERY ONE OF THE EIGHT RAISED THEIR HAND.

See any compromise there folks?

Government is about compromise. Unwillingness to give a little results in government that can not function. That's where we are and why this post.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits