New York Times endorses John Kasich (1342938) | |
Home > OTChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 1 of 2 |
(1342938) | |
New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016 On the Dem side, they went for Hillary.CBS New York
|
|
(1342942) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 14:18:29 2016, in response to New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016. Deja vu all over again.Eight years ago The Times endorsed John McCain as the only acceptable Republican hopeful. Well, McCain became the GOP candidate and the Times turned totally against him in their quest to elect the Democrat. |
|
(1342943) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 30 14:20:41 2016, in response to New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016. Unfortunately, I think Kasich is too far behind at this point to win the nomination. That being said, if he is VP with Marco Rubio at the top of the ticket I think that gives the Republicans the best chance at winning the White House. There are plenty of voters that are disenchanted with Hillary Clinton (those on the left who voted for Obama because they thought they were getting an anti-establishment candidate and would rather sit home than vote for Hillary Clinton, these were the people who voted for Ralph Nader, and swing voters disenchated with the reaction of the Obama administration on foreign policy matter like Iran or domestically in response to Baltimore or Ferguson) |
|
(1342944) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 30 14:22:18 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 14:18:29 2016. The New York Times will always support the Democrat even if the Democrat was Adolf Hitler (and not just Adolf Hitler if you use Glenn Beckian logic) |
|
(1342945) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:23:33 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 14:18:29 2016. Says it all. |
|
(1342946) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 30 14:29:12 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 30 14:20:41 2016. I agree.But the GOP will fuck up and nominate Cruz or Trump. Funny thing is every douchebag is talking about Rush Limabaugh as being an influence. In 2008 he endorsed Romney in the primaries. In 2012 he endorsed Santorum. So it shows you he has no influence in the GOP primaries. His candidate never wins. |
|
(1342948) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 14:35:00 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 30 14:22:18 2016. Your statement is not even metaphorically correct. |
|
(1342950) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 14:43:20 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 14:35:00 2016. For example, Paturkey III |
|
(1342953) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:48:53 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 30 14:29:12 2016. Stop kissing the liberals' asses. |
|
(1342957) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 30 15:00:45 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:48:53 2016. thanks for attacking.I won't be attending Mass tonight because it's cancelled due to some Pirate Parade in downtown Tampa that's just an excuse to abuse alcohol. Not sure why you're attacking me. Is it that I've exposed Irish-Catholicism? The GOP has a way of picking terrible candidates. But we live in an anti-white male society. When you think about it, the GOP did not even win the popular vote when Bush beat Gore. And things are only worse for us now. |
|
(1342961) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Jan 30 15:10:25 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 30 15:00:45 2016. How do they cancel mass? I've never heard of such a thing. |
|
(1342966) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 30 15:15:25 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Jan 30 15:10:25 2016. How do they cancel mass? I've never heard of such a thing.The church is along the parade route. They just cancel 5:30 p Mass once a year. |
|
(1342972) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 15:23:42 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Jan 30 15:10:25 2016. There are also parishes that only have one priest. If the priest is away and hasn't been able to get a replacement, mass is canceled.It's happened to me multiple times in the past year, including last week's snow, as well as a parish I was visiting in Montana where they had only a Eucharistic service because the priest was away. |
|
(1342985) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sat Jan 30 16:15:01 2016, in response to New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016. I'm a Kasich supporter and a monthly contributor to his campaign. I think he is the best man for the job at President, a statesman and not some cheap ass politician. He can reach across the aisle, and he can bring Reagan Democrats, independents and African-Americans into his camp. He has a proven track record when he served in Congress, both as House Budget Chairman where we got a budget surplus two or three years in a row for the first time in over four decades....and he has turned a stagnant and recession stressed Ohio into one of the most well off states in the country, with surpluses and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. He is a winner and is a compassionate type of conservative that can attract young and well as elderly voters.Then, if you've followed his record, you already knew that. |
|
(1342998) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 30 17:02:34 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 14:35:00 2016. Although it was a long time ago, they didn't support Adlai Stevenson either time. |
|
(1343003) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 17:12:49 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 30 17:02:34 2016. It seems they became committed Democrats with JFK (though they did support Javits to the end). They supported Wilkie and Dewey. |
|
(1343011) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 30 17:27:39 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sat Jan 30 16:15:01 2016. He's a misogynst. |
|
(1343013) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 17:32:27 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 17:12:49 2016. Back in the day, many newspapers openly declared their editorial page perspective. The New York Herald Tribune was a Republican newspaper. The Times was a declared independent paper, and they seemed to take that seriously.In the news columns all papers were supposed to be independent, a quality that's steadily eroded from the 60s onward . |
|
(1343014) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 17:32:27 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 17:12:49 2016. Back in the day, many newspapers openly declared their editorial page perspective. The New York Herald Tribune was a Republican newspaper. The Times was a declared independent paper, and they seemed to take that seriously.In the news columns all papers were supposed to be independent, a quality that's steadily eroded from the 60s onward . |
|
(1343015) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 30 17:34:31 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 17:32:27 2016. PRECISELY!And the editorials never colored the news. Further, news wouldn't get published without at least three agreeing verifications as to the facts, or if it was a signed public record. |
|
(1343020) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 30 17:38:58 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 30 17:27:39 2016. As this is a serious allegation kindly post proof |
|
(1343027) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 18:07:00 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 17:32:27 2016. The 60s? There was a liberal slant to the news in the 50s. |
|
(1343031) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 30 18:26:44 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 17:12:49 2016. Dewey 44, 48 or both? |
|
(1343046) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 30 19:16:36 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 30 14:18:29 2016. The NYT endorses "establishment" candidates.So it won't be Trump, Cruz, and it won't be Bernie. |
|
(1343055) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 20:08:07 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 30 17:38:58 2016. Plenty of allegations here.Not going to investigate how solid they are. |
|
(1343056) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 30 20:10:10 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 20:08:07 2016. That assumes that opposing Planned Parenthood is inherently misogynistic. |
|
(1343058) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 20:37:25 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 30 20:10:10 2016. Agreed. There could be non-misogynistic reasons for not wanting to provide funds to an organization that will overwhelmingly use those funds to provide medical care to poor women.However, one might also argue that when the result is so clear-cut, the burden of proof of a different intent shifts to the other side. |
|
(1343067) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 30 22:21:01 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 30 20:10:10 2016. It is. |
|
(1343068) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 30 22:25:48 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 20:37:25 2016. Not to neglect that there is no other organization able to take up the patients from Planned Parenthood long or short term, being so many OB/GYNs won't take Medicaid patients owing to low rate of claim recovery v. liability expense for a practice in this field.So Planned Parenthood patients, disproportionately young and poor, will have no means to access medical care they need. |
|
(1343097) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by TonyG on Sun Jan 31 00:27:53 2016, in response to New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016. I like Kasich. He's the type of candidate I'd vote for if he ever made it to the ballot. Problem is, he'll never make it to the ballot. |
|
(1343100) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Sun Jan 31 00:35:48 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 20:08:07 2016. Plenty of allegations, one issue |
|
(1343106) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sun Jan 31 02:51:09 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 30 20:37:25 2016. 1) Notwithstanding what the self-appointed "expert" bingbong believes, there are sufficient OB/GYN's who accept Medicaid and cutting funding to Planned Parenthood could allow for greater reimbursement rates to private practitioners which would make more OB/GYN's willing to accept Medicaid2) It is not misogynistic to believe that the Government should not fund Planned Parenthood at its current level at the expense of other organizations that also provide medical services to poor women including religious organizations that people would scream 1st Amendment if they got funding 3) Although no Government aid is to be used for advertising, lobbying, etc., Government aid allows the agency to use donations for that purpose as opposed to using donations for medical care like other organizations 4) Unlike hospitals and private practitioners, Planned Parenthood facilities are often ill-equipped to handle complications if they do arise. Planned Parenthood lacks the resources of outpatient surgical facilities and their doctors are unaffiliated with local hospitals which greatly reduces continuity of care |
|
(1343107) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 03:18:01 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by mtk52983 on Sun Jan 31 02:51:09 2016. It is not misogynisticIf anything, it's misandry to have Planned Parenthood and not a comparable organization for men. |
|
(1343108) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sun Jan 31 03:33:44 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 03:18:01 2016. To be fair, men don't need OB/GYN services unless Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger are involved. I guess low income men could go to Planned Parenthood if they were concerned about possible breast cancer, but I have never tried that. Prostate issues are usually noticed based on symptoms and bloodwork done by the Primary Care Physician followed by the appropriate referrals. No need to have an organization like Planned Parenthood if every man had insurance to allow at least a yearly comprehensive physical examination. |
|
(1343109) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 31 03:34:47 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 03:18:01 2016. LOL!You republicans are *so* clueless! Planned Parenthood IS for men! Check out Arizona, they all provide the same everywhere. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-arizona/online-health-center/services-men Florida? No problem! https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/florida/lakeland/33803/lakeland-health-center-2214-90300/mens-health Even Unca Dave can get his flagpole shined: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/texas/houston/77081/southwest-health-center-2293-91650/mens-health What a sad and clueless bunch you are. You'd rather pay for STD's at hospitals, pay off the baby daddy, and bring every child in a battered home to a life of crime and rejection? That's gonna cost a FUCKLOAD more than Planned Parenthood ... |
|
(1343110) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 31 03:36:30 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by mtk52983 on Sun Jan 31 03:33:44 2016. Sounds like some of you need to get off the rag ... it's unnatural. :) |
|
(1343111) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 03:49:12 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 31 03:34:47 2016. You do realize that Planned Parenthood was created by Irish-Catholics to prevent unwanted pregnancies?The Irish are very librul. Planned Parenthood is a woman's health clinic. |
|
(1343112) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 31 03:58:58 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 03:49:12 2016. Go with whatever the morons tell you, it's not like that and hasn't been like that ever since I've been alive. Not everyone has insurance, even now. How much do you think all those unknown Herpes cases are going to cost? Or AIDS? Planned Parenthood is willing to do something about that. Medicaid, not so much. |
|
(1343113) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 04:01:24 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 31 03:58:58 2016. all I know is that Planned Parenthood should fight Fat Feminism.women are getting fatter and fatter. |
|
(1343117) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 31 04:27:53 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 04:01:24 2016. So are men. :)Planned Parenthood is there to take care of everybody's genitals. What's above them is someone else's problem. Heh. In all seriousness though, it SCARES me how people are willing to be lead by their dick by the clueless and then wonder why their OWN taxes are shooting through the roof. Maybe we NEED Bernie ... just for the rude awakening. :( |
|
(1343128) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sun Jan 31 09:07:19 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 30 14:29:12 2016. I can't let this one slide by without a rebuttal.I agree. But the GOP will fuck up and nominate Cruz or Trump. Funny thing is every douchebag is talking about Rush Limabaugh as being an influence. I the words of Rush Limabaugh, he "lives rent free" in the minds of many democrat politicians and members of the media. In 2008 he endorsed Romney in the primaries. In 2012 he endorsed Santorum. So it shows you he has no influence in the GOP primaries. His candidate never wins. He has not nor ever has endorsed a candidate seeking the Republican Party nomination for President of The United States. The only time he did anything close to an endorsement was during "Operation Chaos". John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
(1343129) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 31 09:07:27 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 31 03:49:12 2016. Sanger was not Catholic. Her father was atheist and socialist. |
|
(1343133) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Sun Jan 31 09:34:47 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by mtk52983 on Sun Jan 31 03:33:44 2016. To be even more fair, PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES NOT PERFORM MAMOGRAMS. |
|
(1343234) | |
Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich |
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jan 31 19:53:24 2016, in response to Re: New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 31 09:07:27 2016. And what of her mother? |
|
(1344689) | |
John Kasich says he "ought to be running in a Democratic primary" |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 22:49:50 2016, in response to New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, as the proverb says.CBS News
|
|
(1344706) | |
Re: John Kasich says he ''ought to be running in a Democratic primary'' |
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sun Feb 7 02:07:57 2016, in response to John Kasich says he "ought to be running in a Democratic primary", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 22:49:50 2016. It was a joke because he received the endorsement by the New York Times, the fact that he was responding to a Democrat who liked Kasich, etc. |
|
(1344737) | |
Re: John Kasich says he ''ought to be running in a Democratic primary'' |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 7 10:44:59 2016, in response to Re: John Kasich says he ''ought to be running in a Democratic primary'', posted by mtk52983 on Sun Feb 7 02:07:57 2016. Many a true word has been spoken in jest. |
|
(1345041) | |
John Kasich puts himself in between Hillary and Bernie in political terms |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 8 15:44:41 2016, in response to New York Times endorses John Kasich, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 30 14:07:42 2016. The Week
|
|
(1345045) | |
Re: John Kasich puts himself in between Hillary and Bernie in political terms |
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 8 15:57:08 2016, in response to John Kasich puts himself in between Hillary and Bernie in political terms, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 8 15:44:41 2016. Presumably a joke. Kasich is more conservative than Clinton. |
|
(1345050) | |
Re: John Kasich puts himself in between Hillary and Bernie in political terms |
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 8 16:34:50 2016, in response to John Kasich puts himself in between Hillary and Bernie in political terms, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 8 15:44:41 2016. Just goes to show you how right-wing Hillary really is and how moderately center-left Bernie is. |
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 1 of 2 |