|
|
| Re: Food for Thought For Liberals (468809) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
|
| (468890) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:13:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:07:11 2009. On C&T, that is my prediction...although I didn't have the historical perspective in mind (but that it passed barely is never a good sign). |
|
|
| (468891) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:13:36 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Jul 1 23:09:29 2009. I believe that truly disabled folks should get disability.However, I have a buddy who is a paranoid-skitzo who rents a room and runs his own home maintainence business not taking a dime of government money.he knows able bodies guys in their 20's and 30's who are "disabled" (drug and alcohol addictins) who get SSI and HUD.They promptly get their checks and booze and drug themselves up.That's wrong as well.The problem is the government administration of these agencies that watses billions. |
|
|
| (468892) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:14:29 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 1 23:11:26 2009. In the case of Sotomayor (and SCOTUS), it is a liberal for a liberal (Souter). Now, if the justice being replaced were Anthony Kennedy or Antonin Scalia (that either one will need replacement is not out of the realm of reality), that would have angered America. |
|
|
| (468893) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:15:06 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:09:07 2009. Yup---the lunacy comes in both flavors. |
|
|
| (468894) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Jul 1 23:17:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 1 23:05:23 2009. thats what i am talking bout'lol i think the billionares get off scott free without paying any taxes ! |
|
|
| (468895) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Jul 1 23:17:26 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 1 23:05:23 2009. thats what i am talking bout'lol i think the billionares get off scott free without paying any taxes ! |
|
|
| (468897) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:26:38 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 1 23:11:26 2009. Not sure what "class of people" you were thinking of for SCOTUS (keeping in mind you would be limited to liberals), but from everything I see, Sotomayor is a thoughtful, sharp mainstream liberal jurist. She will be an asset to the court. |
|
|
| (468898) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 1 23:28:54 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:14:29 2009. In the case of Sotomayor (and SCOTUS), it is a liberal for a liberal (Souter).Judge Sotomayor is competent, and she has achieved more in her field than most. But I don't regard her as the ideal candidate. Like many relatively recent (given the infrequent occurrence of vacancies) nominees, she was chosen mainly on the basis of political considerations, which I find unfortunate. Personally, the only judges on that court who I believe are intellectually suited for it are John Roberts and Stephen Breyer, more so on the latter. There were plenty of people around who have political views that the President would find satisfactory. I think that they weren't appointed because they weren't women with Hispanic surnames who had made out with some distinction in the law. Now, if the justice being replaced were Anthony Kennedy or Antonin Scalia (that either one will need replacement is not out of the realm of reality), that would have angered America. I don't see why that should be. The President is under no obligation to try to assure overlap between the judge vacating a seat and his successor. After all, the appointment of judges via the President and Senate is meant to be a check on reactionary or stultifying views of Supreme Court justices. |
|
|
| (468899) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:29:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Jul 1 23:17:23 2009. As far as taxes go, if the Obama Cap and Trade and Health Plan goes into effect, we all are going to have to pay significantly higher taxes.In addition to those two above, there is still Social Security and Medicaire to pay.His claim that nobody making under 250 G's will see a tax increase is very poor fiscal policy.You want to spend, you've got to raise taxes.On everybody! Either that or the value of the dollar will continue to fall when foreign investors refuse to buy treasury bills.Pay higher taxes or lose half the value of everything you own if the dollar collapses 50%. |
|
|
| (468900) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:29:53 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:26:38 2009. Too bad she's a racist. |
|
|
| (468901) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:29:54 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 22:41:33 2009. So you're anti-capitalist? People should not invest in companies which they see as being growth sectors in the coming years just because their political message happens to mesh with that company's prospectus? Of course you guys were silent when Cheney and friends left their respective boards, then funnelled enormous no-bid contracts back to them. That wasn't anything we had to watch for, that happened, unlike your victimization fantasies. |
|
|
| (468902) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:31:16 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:29:53 2009. No, too good that she is not. |
|
|
| (468903) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:31:57 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:29:54 2009. I don't give a rat's ass about politics, show me the companies that will prosper in an eight year Obama run! |
|
|
| (468904) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:33:03 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:31:16 2009. White firefighters who studied hard should not get promoted because no blacks could pass the test. |
|
|
| (468905) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:33:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 22:41:33 2009. None of this is secret. So what? |
|
|
| (468906) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:34:44 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:29:21 2009. Why I am not worried about either:1. C&T only passed because of three Republicans from NJ whose state stands to benefit from it. 2. The C&T vote is probably a harbinger of healthcare---and those Republicans won't have any benefit from allowing THAT to pass. I predict a narrow defeat in the House, by 2-3 votes (healthcare). |
|
|
| (468907) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:35:28 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:31:16 2009. Her "rich" experience as a Hispanic Woman makes her more suitable than a white male. |
|
|
| (468908) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:35:42 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Jul 1 23:09:29 2009. One, you are deliberately distorting what Rogers said. He wasn't speaking about those who can't but rather those who won't.Two, you are personalizing the argument by referring to what you imagine that my position is. Why do all you liberals have to personalize the argument and lower the debate to that level just because you don't agree with the premise? Are your debating skills so weak? Three - you are incorrect. |
|
|
| (468909) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:36:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:29:53 2009. It wouldn't really matter---unless the justice being replaced is Antonin Scalia.Republicans lost any chance to stop her confirmation when they advanced Sam Alito, which essentially threw out the rule that one member of the party out of power had to vote to support the nomination (Alito did not get ANY Democratic support, which meant that Republicans changed the rules mid-game to advance him). |
|
|
| (468910) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:37:04 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:34:44 2009. OK, hey, thanks for your opinion.It will be interesting to watch how these huge bills with big consequences for the economy play out this year! |
|
|
| (468911) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:37:33 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 21:50:30 2009. A significant number of the conservatives on this board are employed by the state government (or for that matter, unemployed). Thus, yes, they get their jobs through what amount to government welfare programs designed around the exact antithesis of social theory which Dr. Rogers espouses.But I guess hypocrisy puts food on the table and a hog in the garage. |
|
|
| (468912) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:38:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:33:03 2009. That's not racism. That's affirmative action. Same shit inside - different wrapper. |
|
|
| (468913) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:38:33 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:33:03 2009. Actually, it was fear of a lawsuit that prompted New Haven to throw out the test results when only 18 whites (plus two Hispanics) passed (the plaintiff and defendant are both Italian-American). Also, the decision didn't touch on if this is within the Constitution or not. |
|
|
| (468914) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:39:18 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:37:04 2009. They will either both pass or neither will pass.Midterms loom big with both issues---but then again, so does post-midterm redistricting. |
|
|
| (468915) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:40:18 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:29:54 2009. Wilbur, you need to go back and take a primer on reading comprehension. I've never said any such thing. Then again, why should I ever expect you to get anything correct? |
|
|
| (468916) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:40:49 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:37:33 2009. I find it hard to believe that state government union workers, who are always told or forced to vote Democrat, can be considered conservatives.Most conservatives I know are non-union, small business owners. |
|
|
| (468918) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:42:18 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:33:51 2009. So they've got the mindless lemmings such as yourself banging the pots for global warming when most scientists say it's bullshit but liberal phonies like gore and pelosi get rich off your ignorance. |
|
|
| (468919) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:42:52 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:38:33 2009. Sad when qualified people are rejected for fear of a racially based lawsuit.Affirmative action breeds mediocrity. |
|
|
| (468920) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:43:02 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:38:05 2009. I'm not so sure it's affirmative action as much as showing Republicans what is good for the goose is good for the gander (and throwing it right back in their faces)In case you are wondering what I am talking about (and it will need background), in the past, a nomination could be killed in committee if every member of the minority party objected. This changed when Sam Alito was advanced, despite the fact that every member of the minority party objected. As such, I would call it more of Obama spitting in the face of the GOP saying that he dares them to stop Sotomayor's confirmation (which I don't think that they can). |
|
|
| (468921) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:43:37 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:40:49 2009. Don't underestimate the power of Americans to think; many of them may well be moderates. |
|
|
| (468923) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:45:43 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:42:18 2009. LOL! I read Gore left office worth 2 million and now he is worth over 100 million! How come he lives in a huge McMansion spewing out carbon, jetting thither and yon with SUV caravans spewing carbon.Why doesn't he live in an 1800 foot 65 year old colonial cape like me? Why doesn't Tipper hang the clothes on the line instead of spewing carbon from a gas dryer? |
|
|
| (468924) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:46:10 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:40:49 2009. You might want to ask some of the more backward posters here exactly what it is they do for a living. The answer might surprise you. Of course none of them will give up their government dole in the name of small government, but they'll still vote for the folks who endanger their jobs on an annual basis. |
|
|
| (468925) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:46:37 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:37:33 2009. You just continue to prove yourself a bigger and more idiotic asshole. Where do you equate government jobs with welfare? The fact is that most government jobs produce a needed service that simply not available through private industry. If it were not for the several dozen transportation professionals on this board you'd likely have no way to get to that college that you are flunking out of. |
|
|
| (468926) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:48:44 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:45:43 2009. The way Al and Tipper have "bulked up" since leaving Washington, I'd guess that their carbon footprint is in large measure made up of methane gas passing from their G.I. Tracts. |
|
|
| (468927) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 1 23:49:32 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:46:37 2009. There are some though that are wastes. Few would dispute the need for some agencies like the MTA---but are the levels of taxation in New York (as many as five outside of New York City---federal, state, county, town or city, and village (not within a city)) plus various districts), or in the case of NYC, the borough presidents and public advocate, REALLY necessary? |
|
|
| (468928) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:49:37 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:40:18 2009. Then you did not say:they don't realize how badly they are being played. Nancy Pelosi owns over $100,000 in stock in a comany the sells green technology while at the same time the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore owns an I.T. company that sells software that enables companies to measure their carbon footprintRight? Because after all, that's just capitalism in action. Or are you some sort of communist who wants to limit people's right of expression with their hard earned money? |
|
|
| (468929) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 1 23:51:20 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jul 1 23:26:38 2009. from everything I see, Sotomayor is a thoughtful, sharp mainstream liberal jurist. She will be an asset to the court.I have atypical views about who should serve on the Supreme Court, as my views here indicate. That said, were I in the Senate, for the reasons stated in the linked post, I would vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor's appointment, although I would not have appointed her. Not sure what "class of people" you were thinking of for SCOTUS (keeping in mind you would be limited to liberals) That and they can't be too old, and he probably wants someone who is already a judge. Well, how about Diane Wood on the 7th Circuit? I regard her as more sharp. Michael Dorf, formerly Professor at Columbia, now at Cornell, is not only exceedingly bright but excels at explaining law without tons of jargon, as readers of his popular column know. Plenty of other people I could rattle off, but what's the point? The President went with competence and politics over brilliance. |
|
|
| (468930) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Jul 1 23:51:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 1 22:45:37 2009. LOL |
|
|
| (468931) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:52:16 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:46:10 2009. No, that's not my business what they do.If you are a state or city worker, you have to vote Democrat to protect your job.I don't begrudge an individual doing that at all.As a small business owner for 25 years, I always voted pro-business to help myself.A person should votr for the party that will put food on their table and pay the mortgage-rent! |
|
|
| (468932) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:52:45 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:46:10 2009. So small-minded ass-hole failures like you have an axe to grind because they don't have those "do-nothing" "government" jobs. Why don't you get up at 2 AM during a blizzard and force your way into work because you have to operate a bus or a train in weather where lazy assholes like you usually roll over and go back to bed. I certainly doubt that you could make the grade. |
|
|
| (468933) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:53:25 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:49:37 2009. Learn how to read, wilma. |
|
|
| (468934) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:53:32 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:48:44 2009. LOL, yeah, if Gore shut that big hole of his, the earth might be saved! |
|
|
| (468935) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:54:19 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:46:37 2009. Where do you equate government jobs with welfare? The fact is that most government jobs produce a needed service that simply not available through private industry.Ah, so we can privatize everything else, but leave your little kingdom alone, eh? After all, you and other conservatives on this board have repeatedly stated how everything can be done better, faster, and cheaper in any number of areas by private industry. It must be fun voting for your own unemployment every two to four years. |
|
|
| (468936) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Jul 1 23:59:40 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:35:42 2009. I'm saying that if you did not have a good job, and the safety nets of a pension and healthcare coverage, you might be indigent, and if you had no support system (e.g., relatives or other helpful people close to you), you would need government help, desperately.I'm not "personalizing" the argument any more than your OP suggests the government ought not to help those who are out of work or disabled. I'm saying that you can quote Rogers because you are in a comfortable life situation which makes it easy and possible for you to see things from that perspective. I still respectfully beg to differ with you on whether I am correct or not. I'll say it again, God help us if we ever allow our government to stop helping those in dire need. |
|
|
| (468939) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 00:01:45 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:53:32 2009. "LOL, yeah, if Gore shut that big hole of his, the earth might be saved!"Perhaps but at least the bovine population of the world would stop taking the entire blame for the hole in the ozone layer. |
|
|
| (468940) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Jul 2 00:02:49 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:52:45 2009. I wouldn't know about getting up to go to my government job with full healthcare because on that day you're up at 2am I'll be up 3 hours later to plow out an airport and spend the sub zero day clearing snow from the aircraft and hangers with a broom and shovel. Do not for a second try to pretend I do not earn my keep. Other than student loans, which I am now repaying in spades thanks to Bush dicking over every person between 18 and 26 in this country, I have never taken any sort of welfare from the government. I just happen to realize that if I want to live like a republican I need to vote democratic, because the career possibilities in recent years have been far better when they're in office. |
|
|
| (468941) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 00:03:00 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:54:19 2009. I can see why you repeatedly flunked out of school. End of discussion, loser. |
|
|
| (468942) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 00:04:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Jul 1 23:59:40 2009. Once again, the quote referred to those who will not work and not those whe can't work. What part of that do you not understand? |
|
|
| (468944) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Jul 2 00:05:16 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 23:53:25 2009. So that direct quote I took from you was in error? You did not say that? You can keep dodging the question, or you can just admit you were wrong. |
|
|
| (468946) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 00:09:10 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Thu Jul 2 00:02:49 2009. Hey, dickhead, is it a privately owned airport? If you have no health benefits, it's not because I have them. It's because your job doesn't offer them because the government agency that runs that airport doesn't want you personally to have them. Thank your boy, obama. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||