|
|
| Re: Food for Thought For Liberals (468809) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
|
| (469113) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:18:37 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Jul 2 12:59:09 2009. Only a prelude for the huge damage our country is headed for under Obama if what is happening is allowed to continue unchecked. |
|
|
| (469115) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 13:42:09 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:15:21 2009. 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.Only as a source of ridicule. |
|
|
| (469117) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:46:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 13:42:09 2009. And that's fine, as he's just an entertainer, not a "representative" or "elected official" of the Republican party. People here are NOT only siting him as a "source of ridicule", they actually believe he's a representative of the Republican party, which he is not. |
|
|
| (469118) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jul 2 13:47:34 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:16:46 2009. Elections have consequences.Sanford won. Get over it. On second thought, that guy is messed up yo. To quote the talented and lovely Whitney Houston, the Pride of Newark: "Crack is whack." |
|
|
| (469120) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 13:55:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:46:51 2009. People here are NOT only siting him as a "source of ridicule", they actually believe he's a representative of the Republican party, which he is not.He is a representative of the fringes of the Republican party. I think he's more than an "entertainer," but he is no representative of the mainstream or majority of conservatives, either. |
|
|
| (469121) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 13:58:04 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 13:42:09 2009. Whatever. WABC AM is top 10 in NYC, a minority/immigrant/liberal market. Beating or tied with La Mega. Obviously this is because Rush means more to the left, as GP38Chris suggests. |
|
|
| (469122) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 13:59:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 13:55:23 2009. Then why are his ratings so high in minority/liberal/immigrant cities? |
|
|
| (469123) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 14:00:06 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:16:46 2009. I think he should do what Bill Clinton did. |
|
|
| (469126) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 14:02:33 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:09:17 2009. Lowering standards may be the only way to get women and minorities onto jobs like cop and fireman. That's a given.What I suggest, is having a 100% women firehouse in the most liberal part of NY, say Upper West Side, and see how safe residents feel then. Watch how fast the libs change course when it's their own backyard that is at risk. |
|
|
| (469127) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Jul 2 14:09:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:18:37 2009. well.....yea........chuckle,......yea ........$%$%%%%^$%^&^^#$%$#!!!! |
|
|
| (469129) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 14:14:55 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 13:59:15 2009. Because the left LOVES him. He's the guy they love to hate. Just like Sarah Palin, but at least she is an elected official, so there is at least some merit there. |
|
|
| (469130) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 14:20:26 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:15:21 2009. That's ridiculous. You may not listen to him, but he is very influential with his audience and he has a very large audience. |
|
|
| (469131) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 14:22:34 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 14:14:55 2009. I was telling a friend who works in Hispanic media about the concept of a Limbaugh/Beck/Savage show in Spanish on WADO AM with a host who is against amnesty, welfare, ESL, etc........... He takes calls after asking questions like, "If you are an illegal immigrant, and you think you deserve amnesty, call now". I think it would get over huge. |
|
|
| (469132) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 14:23:45 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 14:20:26 2009. What has he influenced? Certainly not elections? Maybe some tea parties. |
|
|
| (469133) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 14:29:32 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 14:02:33 2009. Are there enough women firefighters to staff a whole firehouse? I've never seen one. I suspect that's because to be a firefighter you need a lot of upper body strength that women don't have, and that the standards have NOT been relaxed. |
|
|
| (469134) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 14:32:26 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 14:23:45 2009. You're saying because he can't single handedly deliver the candidate of his choosing to the Presidency that he has no influence?When I say influence I mean that his talking points become national talking points. He influences the perception of what are and what aren't important issues. That's extremely powerful. Plus his "ditto heads" pretty much buy whatever he's selling. That's about half his audience IMO. |
|
|
| (469136) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 14:45:54 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 14:20:26 2009. I said he has NOTHING to do with the Republican party. He is a commentator. he is NOT an elected official or representative of the GOP. |
|
|
| (469138) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 14:51:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 07:45:46 2009. You bit the bait.I don't know anyone who is in favor of welfare for any reason other than:
|
|
|
| (469139) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 14:52:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 09:44:47 2009. Repeat, but not correct, eh? |
|
|
| (469140) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Jul 2 15:19:19 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 00:25:12 2009. That's how it should be and just like yourself, I also don't begrudge somebody voting based on self-interest but today's GOP base is a bunch of gullible and mindless Rushbots who vote against their own economic interests.Just like not all liberals are communists, not all conservatives are rushbots. I don't "hate" Obama and think he's more misguided than anything else. Socialism doesn't really work long term as an economic system, nothing hateful about that view. They harbor an underlying racial animosity that makes them fall for it every time. There is definetly that element to it, both amongst several poters and in the world at large. But again, it depends on what type of "conservative" we're talking about here. |
|
|
| (469141) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 15:31:35 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:37:15 2009. As I said, I think that nuclear power is part - perhaps a large part considering the lag that you mention - of what we must do more of in the future. This will take a lot of investment by the state, and streamlining of regulation and oversight. Some people will definitely end up worse off, but most people will end up better off.I think that wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc., and research on developing new sources are also essential. Part of what I don't like about the partisanship on this issue is that each party is very clear about which its favorite(s) is(are), and what makes up the contrast class. But that's no way to make up sound policy. |
|
|
| (469144) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 15:40:32 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:46:17 2009. This was a big part of McCain's platform and he was right.Remember that being right about something and getting the deal done are completely different issues. 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 TMI, Chernobyl. Obviously nuclear energy can be produced relatively safely, but there has to be a conscious effort to engage in a real discussion about the risk, the probability of it, and the benefits. Funding nuclear power plants takes a lot of effort and money, siting it will take a lot of governmental assistance, and overseeing it to ensure that we don't have another incident that will destroy public confidence in it for several decades more. so it's wind and solar it seems. Wind and solar can be made productive too; I don't see why we have to look at these issues as either/or. |
|
|
| (469145) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 15:41:52 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 14:45:54 2009. You are correct that Rush is not an elected official nor is he a GOP representative, but that's an obvious observation.Keep in mind that Luch's post (that you quoted) said that not only was he NOT a politician, but that he was ALSO a man of little influence. Since we both agree that he is not an elected official, what is your opinion on that part? Do you think that Rush is influential or not? |
|
|
| (469148) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 15:51:00 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 14:32:26 2009. We're talking about the GOP only, the party you radical liberals think he controls. If he did control the GOP, his candidate of choosing would be nominated by the party. However, that never happens. |
|
|
| (469150) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 15:52:22 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 15:41:52 2009. Prove he's inferential. What has he influenced? |
|
|
| (469152) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 15:54:34 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 14:29:32 2009. The FDNY test used to be harder. Standards have been relaxed.If there were enough women firefighters, no one would be happy with it if it was in their neighborhood. |
|
|
| (469155) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 16:01:32 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 15:52:22 2009. We're obviously working off different definitions of "influence". |
|
|
| (469156) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 16:04:40 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 16:01:32 2009. Agreed. I think Rush influences radio ratings and revenues. That's about it.Rush does not create talking points. His comments on Sotomayor and the New Haven firefighters case are in line with what most white middle class blue collar types already feel about affirmative action. |
|
|
| (469159) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 16:08:45 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 15:54:34 2009. If there were enough women firefighters, no one would be happy with it if it was in their neighborhood.But the proof that they haven't relaxed their standards in any substantive way is that there are hardly any women firefighters. |
|
|
| (469160) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 16:16:37 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 16:08:45 2009. You don't account for the possibility that very few women are interested in being a firefighter.The police have gotten rid of most of their physical standards, yet female officers, while not as rare as female firefighters, aren't close to being hired in proportion to the general population. |
|
|
| (469164) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 16:47:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 16:16:37 2009. Oh my God you sexist SOB for stating the absolute truth,LOL!I can see more women handling the police job because it doesn't take much upper body strength to pull a trigger. |
|
|
| (469177) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:38:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 15:41:52 2009. He's not influential in the party, no. However, he appears to be extremely influential in getting the left riled up. |
|
|
| (469178) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:41:12 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 16:08:45 2009. But just because there aren't more, that doesn't prove they haven't relaxed the test for females. Have you never thought that it's not really a job that would be appealing to women en mass? |
|
|
| (469179) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:41:19 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:38:23 2009. I think that he is. Remember he got the most poll votes when a sample of Republican voters were asked to name the current leader of the Republican Party.He might rile liberals, but mainstream Democrats are enjoying his popularity. The more popular he is, the more out of touch it makes Republicans look. |
|
|
| (469180) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:42:22 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Wed Jul 1 22:24:52 2009. That's a favorite technique used when they are backed in a corner. |
|
|
| (469181) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:43:56 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:42:22 2009. "They" as in only liberals? |
|
|
| (469184) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:51:31 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:41:19 2009. You hit the nail on the head with your second sentence, but it's the left that is making him "that popular". |
|
|
| (469185) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:53:02 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:43:56 2009. Right now, yes, as it's the liberals and left that have to do the defending right now due to that party being in control. That may have been different when the prior administration was in power, but we are talking about the present.Once again, saying something about one side does not imply absolving the other side. |
|
|
| (469186) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 17:53:16 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:41:19 2009. Out of touch? Meaning the wrong skin color in the new millennium? |
|
|
| (469187) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 17:54:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:41:12 2009. FDNY relaxed the test for sure. Can't remember if it was for women or b/c someone died taking it. |
|
|
| (469188) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 17:55:50 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:41:19 2009. Out of touch? LOL. That's why NY, a liberal cesspool is afraid to let voters vote on the gay marriage issue. Maybe America is not as liberal as you think. |
|
|
| (469190) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:57:31 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 17:53:16 2009. No, I didn't mean race at all. Just policy. |
|
|
| (469191) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 18:01:07 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 05:55:14 2009. Wait until the "carbon trade" scam starts in earnest. |
|
|
| (469195) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 18:07:39 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 17:57:31 2009. What policies are Republicans out of touch with? Drilling? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Affirmative action? Immigration? |
|
|
| (469196) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 18:11:07 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 17:55:50 2009. I don't think that America is very liberal. Mostly moderate with more conservatives than liberals. |
|
|
| (469198) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 18:12:53 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 18:07:39 2009. Republicans aren't out of touch. I said that letting Rush speak for them makes them appear to be. |
|
|
| (469202) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:01:13 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 13:07:55 2009. The rule, at least until Sam Alito's nomination is that for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee to be advanced for a full up-or-down vote, it must get a minimum of 10 yeas in committee, one of which must come from the minority party.Under that rule, Alito's nomination would have died in committee---until the Republicans changed this rule which had existed for just about as long as the USA has existed in one form or another. TIME Magazine noted it here, but it apparently forgot that the rule was likely abolished. |
|
|
| (469203) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:03:20 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:24:21 2009. The position of teacher in schools is not a civil service job (that is, one doesn't take a test to apply).IINM, the standards were not lowered to let them in; their claim was that they could meet the standards as set...and they did. |
|
|
| (469204) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:03:46 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 11:37:15 2009. The new application for a plant is in Maryland. |
|
|
| (469205) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:04:35 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by docstox on Thu Jul 2 11:46:17 2009. Actually, another problem---and this is the case with ANY plant---is that people don't want one near them, and they will use delay tactics to discourage development. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||