|
|
| Re: Food for Thought For Liberals (468809) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 11 |
||
|
| (469038) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:27:15 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?Who's funding your pension? |
|
|
| (469039) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 09:39:10 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 09:11:14 2009. I can give you many reasons from people I know in private and public sectors but I would be called a racist on this board.especially by people like you. |
|
|
| (469040) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 09:41:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 09:12:14 2009. Who says I'm a rightist for saying this woman is not qualified for being a SC judge? Some of her decisions were recently overturned by that very body.You liberals make me sick, calling people rightists for disagreeing with you.I'm an Independant moderate. |
|
|
| (469041) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:42:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 1 22:21:01 2009. Wikipedia cites his biography, which admittedly isn't much better since we can't confirm it.It's easy enough to go to a library or bookstore. The quote doesn't seem particularly out of line from a Scriptural point of view. The Old Testament extensively regulates slavery and specifies harsh penalties for mistreatment of servants. I'm sure he wasn't referring to the American slave trade. |
|
|
| (469042) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:44:47 2009, in response to Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 21:43:14 2009. For my liberal friends, this might give you something to think about.It makes me think about what the world record is for using the greatest number of different pithy sayings to repeat the same thing. |
|
|
| (469043) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 09:48:31 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 09:20:25 2009. You'll need a lot more revenue than that, friend! To fund a new health plan, infrastructure spending as well as pay out Social Security and Medicaire, tax rates will have to go up to the 60 or 70 percent bracket and a value added tax will be needed to get money from the lower income people, most of whom pay no taxes at all.13 trillion more will be needed by 2019.Now,raising taxes excessively chokes off economic development, so the plan to increase long term wages and keep good paying American jobs here will be tough.Oh, wait, we have the Obama messiah in charge.It'll all be a snap,LOL! |
|
|
| (469049) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 10:15:55 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 23:33:03 2009. White firefighters who studied hard should not get promoted because no blacks could pass the test.I think this was already hashed out in a different thread. It was within the New Haven Civil Service Board's right not to certify the election results. It's the job of the court to determine if a law was upheld, not to act based on one's opinion of the validity of that law. |
|
|
| (469050) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 10:20:42 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 06:02:15 2009. How about 98% of blacks voting for Obama.That's racial if you ask me.That means 98% of whites should have voted for McCain. If blacks really voted based on race alone, why didn't Alan Keyes do better? |
|
|
| (469051) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 10:22:59 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:24:49 2009. "job security,"Unknown in the private sector. |
|
|
| (469052) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 10:25:00 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 09:39:10 2009. "People you know" are anecdotes, not evidence. Statistics on performance factors for different groups are evidence. |
|
|
| (469053) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 10:27:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 09:41:21 2009. Her recent Ricci decision was overturned 5-4. She is hardly out of the mainstream. The majority of her decisions on race issues came out against those arguing bias. Do some research before sliming someone you don't know as a racist. |
|
|
| (469054) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:27:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 1 23:46:10 2009. You might want to ask some of the more backward posters here exactly what it is they do for a living.Who are "some of the more backwards posters here", I assume people that don't agree with your political views? |
|
|
| (469057) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:31:39 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 06:26:25 2009. Again, Rush is not a politician. He is not an elected official. This is a free country, and anyone can put their political ideas on the radio, etc. That doesn't make them a representative of the party they profess. |
|
|
| (469058) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:33:07 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 09:14:58 2009. A Condelezza candidacy against a white Democrat would have subtracted 4-8% points.I absolutely don't believe that at all. And what do you base this 4-8% on, or is that totally pulled out of your rear? |
|
|
| (469059) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:37:25 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:20:36 2009. It goes in cycles. The Democrats were in disarray after elections where Republicans have won too. This is nothing new, and it goes in cycles. A party is in power, and slowly the people begin to hate them, and eventually vote them out. Then the other party gets power, the people begin to hate them, and they eventually get voted out, and the cycle continues.This is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a "people in power" thing. The party in power always becomes corrupt (yes both parties do this). Of COURSE the party not in power doesn't become corrupt, as they aren't in power to become so, so slowly the people move away from the party that is in power, and vote in the other party, eventually leaving the party that was in power in disarray and the cycle and the cycle continues |
|
|
| (469060) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:38:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 07:00:13 2009. You and me both, but I have about 20 years more to be able to see it happen. |
|
|
| (469061) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:38:48 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 10:20:42 2009. What does this cartoon have to do with anything? |
|
|
| (469062) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:40:48 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:24:49 2009. Yes, 1/5th, and the rest of the employed people are paying for the government ones paying that 1/5 that are getting a free ride. |
|
|
| (469063) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:42:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 08:31:17 2009. Criticizing Obama or the Democrats for something does NOT condone the other side from doing the same thing. |
|
|
| (469064) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:43:30 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 09:10:10 2009. huh?Yes, he is my president. That is why I am upset when he does things I don't agree with. But I see you don't have a real answer for the point made, so you have to try and deflect with a post like "Obama won. Get over it". LOL. |
|
|
| (469065) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:45:33 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 1 22:02:59 2009. Can you please provide an accurate and reputable source for that claim? Anything I google with that comes up to some biased blog. |
|
|
| (469068) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 10:57:06 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 08:30:28 2009. I understand that the energy bill has little chance of passing the Senate as it is currently written. But legislation that combines an unlikely chance of having the desired environmental effect while having a very likely chance of increasing the cost of living.I have no doubt that we must invest more, and encourage the private sector to invest more, in 'renewables' and non-fossil fuel sources of energy. Geothermal, solar, wind, etc., are indeed sources that we should be using more (I think that nuclear has a place in there too, although that's a subject for another day). But the question is how to efficiently and productively promote use of these 'future' energy sources without significantly increasing energy costs, and thus, costs generally. |
|
|
| (469070) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 11:08:54 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 09:08:04 2009. Yes, another campaign promise, like the one about "no one making under $250,000 will see their taxes increase in any way". What a crock that was. |
|
|
| (469074) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 11:20:49 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:37:25 2009. The Democrats were in disarray after elections where Republicans have won too. This is nothing new, and it goes in cycles. A party is in power, and slowly the people begin to hate them, and eventually vote them out. Then the other party gets power, the people begin to hate them, and they eventually get voted out, and the cycle continues.This isn't quite the same thing. The Republicans are seeing a rift based on the party's fundamental principles, which hasn't been seen since the split between conservative Democrats and progressive Democrats in the late 1960s. Yes, the Democratic party survived (though with a completely different set of principles), and the same could be true of the Republican party, but only if a better alternative doesn't come along. |
|
|
| (469075) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 11:21:29 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:38:48 2009. What does this cartoon have to do with anything?Just the last panel. And I think it's funny :). |
|
|
| (469081) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:29:25 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 10:25:00 2009. Whatever! |
|
|
| (469082) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:31:02 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 10:27:15 2009. When she makes statements like a Hispanic woman has more rich experience than a white man, I consider it racist. |
|
|
| (469083) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:31:44 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 11:08:54 2009. Like "Read my lips...no new taxes" |
|
|
| (469085) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 11:34:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:31:02 2009. Of course you do, and so would most people, except diehard liberals who only see racism when it's done the other way. |
|
|
| (469086) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 11:35:19 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:31:44 2009. Yeah, the song seems very similar doesn't it?I actually liked Clinton though. I wasn't "scared to death at what is happening to our country" under his administration. |
|
|
| (469089) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:36:29 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 08:30:22 2009. It's just a guess...but as an ex-Senator, Obama probably knows that the rule that existed for a long time no longer does. |
|
|
| (469091) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:37:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 10:57:06 2009. However---what we need more of is nuclear power plants, and the USA went 30 years between applications for one (1979-this year). |
|
|
| (469092) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:39:13 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 02:55:22 2009. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, there was a lawsuit over the FDNY test involving 40 women, who claimed that they were denied the opportunity to pursue their goals as firefighters (believing that they could pass the same tests as men). They won their lawsuit, and while most are retired now, some have shot up the ranks. |
|
|
| (469093) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:40:39 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 09:41:21 2009. At the same time, Alito is another justice who is not qualified. It doesn't make it right, but it will balance it out. |
|
|
| (469095) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 11:42:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:40:39 2009. Alito is another justice who is not qualifiedproff? |
|
|
| (469096) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:43:25 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 11:35:19 2009. You know, I agree with you about Clinton.My business prospered and my house went up in value.True, he neglected Bin Laden, but the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate from '94 on, and they let that go as well.I think the feeling after the berlin Wall came down and Russia collapsed in the early nineties was that our problems were all over.Clinton said to Bush the day Clinton left that his biggest regret was not getting Bin Laden. |
|
|
| (469098) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:46:17 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:37:15 2009. Absolutely correct.This was a big part of McCain's platform and he was right.If we had built those nuke plants, we would be getting 60 to 70 percent of our power, like France, from these pollution free sources of power.Too many people scared of them in this country, so it's wind and solar it seems. |
|
|
| (469099) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:24:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:39:13 2009. There's always a lawsuit against FDNY or NYPD. Where's the outrage over all the female liberal school teachers in the NYC public school system?Didn't FDNY lower their standards so women can pass the test? They argued that the "dummy drag" was too heavy, and discriminatory. |
|
|
| (469100) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:27:30 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:31:39 2009. Exactly. Rush is not a politician. He's also a man of little influence. I remember when Rush, Hannity, Medved, Prager, Savage, Levin, Ingraham(she's off NY radio now), were all endorsing Giuliani and Romney durning the primaries. No one wanted McCain, and he still won the primaries. Shows you that people don't listen to these people for advice on how to vote, but rather to be entertained. |
|
|
| (469101) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:33:08 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 09:08:04 2009. It's not happening. Obama never said 95% of tax payers will get a cut. He said 95% of Americans. So people who don't pay taxes will get some kind benefit anyway.Again, I don't know anyone, even liberals who voted for Obama, who now expect a tax break. Most are just hoping the tax increases aren't too bad. When does that 2010 schedulue come out? |
|
|
| (469102) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:36:33 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 09:14:58 2009. Right. The percentage of blacks who vote Democrat is in the 90's. But Obama motivated more blacks and more minorities so that more came out to the polls. This had to help him tremendously in Indiana(think Gary, Ind), Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.Those are the four states to watch in the next election. |
|
|
| (469103) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:39:48 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:43:30 2009. That's right GP38 Chris, Get Over It! LOL. End all political discussion unless a Republican is in office who we can criticize. |
|
|
| (469104) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:42:36 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:31:02 2009. Not only is it racist, but it's something white people can't say. |
|
|
| (469105) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Jul 2 12:43:28 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 08:09:44 2009. he was there too long for me !!whew !! glad he is GONE |
|
|
| (469106) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:47:03 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Jul 1 22:07:13 2009. Bush is no longer president. Get over it.(Not sure why I said that, but I guess I wanted to sound like Italianstallion). |
|
|
| (469107) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Jul 2 12:59:09 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:47:03 2009. look and the damage the regan - bush era errors did ....whew !my opinion K? |
|
|
| (469108) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:07:55 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:36:29 2009. What rule? |
|
|
| (469109) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:09:17 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:39:13 2009. If they can pass the same test as the men, there is no problem with women in either force. But I am against lowering standards JUST so they can be in the force, that is wrong. |
|
|
| (469111) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:15:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:27:30 2009. He's also a man of little influence.That's what I find so hysterical, he means more to the left, and has more influence on THE LEFT than he does on the right! it's the left that constantly brings him up. |
|
|
| (469112) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:16:46 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:39:48 2009. End all political discussion unless a Republican is in office who we can criticize.Yes, the governor of South Carolina should step down! What an ASSHOLE! |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 11 |
||