|
|
| Re: Food for Thought For Liberals (468809) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 11 |
||
|
| (469844) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jul 3 23:30:12 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jul 2 22:50:27 2009. And Bush, and Obama. And whoever the next president will be. |
|
|
| (469850) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jul 3 23:35:48 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 17:55:50 2009. Why on earth would gay marriage need to be voted on in New York? It's not unconstitutional and New York does not have initiative. |
|
|
| (469858) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jul 3 23:49:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jul 3 23:11:46 2009. I was too young to vote for him. I probably would have voted against the first time, and voted with on the second.That is what I did. |
|
|
| (469863) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 4 01:47:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 3 21:04:29 2009. Great idea. I'm sure you'll also like the idea of some government bean-counter making decisions about what sort of medical treatments you"really need" and what you can do without. I'm sure you won't mind waiting 9 months or a year to see a specialist or being told that you don't need a cat scan.Have you ever heard of this thing called Medicare? |
|
|
| (469864) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 4 01:50:29 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 3 21:06:42 2009. Small minds will discuss people.I see you can neither discuss ideas nor can you discuss events. I'm not the one that started a thread about liberals. Seems to me that you want to discuss people. |
|
|
| (469957) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 4 14:12:41 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 4 01:50:29 2009. I rest my case. |
|
|
| (469958) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 4 14:15:04 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 4 01:47:21 2009. Yeah, have you? Wrought with fraud and lack of concern for the patient. I hope that when tyou are of that group and your Dr. orders a necessary procedure for you - only to find out that medicare won't pay for it, you remember what your position is today. |
|
|
| (470094) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 01:23:03 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jul 3 23:07:20 2009. The point was that none of the bad events that were predicted actually happened. Clinton presided over a good economy and left office with a surplus.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470097) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 01:25:40 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 4 01:50:29 2009. LOL, he's the only guy I know who will accuse someone of the crime he himself is committing, while doing it.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470171) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 5 07:55:31 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 01:23:03 2009. But I actually agreed with a lot of the things Clinton was doing. Not all of course, but I didn't agree with a lot that Bush did either.As for Obama, I find myself not agree with a LOT of the things he is doing. And perhaps it's not just Obama, but Congress right now too. Put them together, and it's not a pretty picture. Again, for the most part, I liked Clinton. |
|
|
| (470172) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 07:59:27 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jul 3 22:57:29 2009. LOL, true. That and sometimes you just miss posts in the volume of other posts. I find that when I have to change from compressed mode I miss mores stuff.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470173) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 07:59:28 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jul 3 22:57:29 2009. LOL, true. That and sometimes you just miss posts in the volume of other posts. I find that when I have to change from compressed mode I miss mores stuff.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470175) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 5 08:10:39 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 07:59:27 2009. I view mostly in chronological on the OT side, as i do miss things if not. I view the train side in compressed mode though. I probably miss a lot more on the train side like that, but it also helps me keep out of the "flame wars" there, and keeps that side "pleasant".This side, I think everyone takes their gloves off anyway, so for whatever reason I read this side chronologically. But it's very easy to miss something in the volume of posts. If I don't respond to something, it's probably that I just didn't see it. If someone REALLY wants a response, and it seems like I "ignored" it, they can always bump it, and perhaps I will find it the second time around.... :) I don't intentionally not respond to ANYONE here, it's usually just "human error", or simply didn't see it. |
|
|
| (470176) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 08:20:26 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 5 08:10:39 2009. Yeah, plus you probably don't race home to respond to something here either lol. I sure don't.I agree with using compressed mode. When I see the same two couples' posts dancing over to the right side of my monitor, I know to stay away! your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470242) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 5 15:26:46 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jul 3 07:30:59 2009. We need recall. |
|
|
| (470313) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 5 21:22:22 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 5 08:20:26 2009. It's quite incredible that despite the controversial topics that we discuss here on OTChat, we rarely descend into full out flame wars.On SubChat, some people want to see each other dead because of disagreements over trains while here we can more or less remain civilized while discussing potentially incendiary subjects like politics, race, religion and Shamrock Shakes. |
|
|
| (470449) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 6 06:53:24 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 5 21:22:22 2009. You must have missed the broken glass.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470482) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 6 07:53:11 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 5 21:22:22 2009. Smaz, you are correct! The conversation on the off topic side is way more civilized (although usually heated) than the on topic side. It's amazing how talk about trains can turn into all out flame wars, and talk about "politics, race, religion, and shamrock shakes" usually don't get worse than a heated conversation....usually.I find the on topic board more childish than the off topic one (in the way people act), and way more fanatical (which I don't get sometimes). |
|
|
| (470484) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 6 07:56:07 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 6 06:53:24 2009. But he's right. While the conversation and argument gets heated here, and somewhat silly sometimes (broken glass arguments), I don't see the all out flaming on the off topic side that I see on the train side. The hard core train people go off the deep end way easier. I love trains, but I don't get the way some people follow them like religion. Some people are WAY too into it.The "train" stuff is the bond that brings ALL of us together here, but there are definitely different levels of fanaticm here. |
|
|
| (470485) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 6 07:58:23 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 6 07:56:07 2009. Oh I agree with you guys, but couldn't resist adding a Luch-ism after seeing "shamrock shakes". It's like we try harder here because we know it's mostly opinions being shared. With trains it's all hard cold facts, I swear ta God!!your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (470812) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 6 21:13:57 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 6 07:53:11 2009. Smaz, you are correct! The conversation on the off topic side is way more civilized (although usually heated) than the on topic side. It's amazing how talk about trains can turn into all out flame wars, and talk about "politics, race, religion, and shamrock shakes" usually don't get worse than a heated conversation....usually.I find the on topic board more childish than the off topic one (in the way people act), and way more fanatical (which I don't get sometimes). Yeah. Crazy as it sounds, it seems that the regulars here are more thick-skinned and can take the razzing and hits a lot better. We must have a better sense of humor or something. There hasn't yet been any topic that would cause a certain and uncontrollable flame war. On the main board anybody advocating a service change on any given line would be inviting bloody murder upon himself, his family and his pets. |
|
|
| (472338) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Jul 9 20:43:52 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Jul 3 13:47:07 2009. What amazes me is that Baltimore City has not had a Republican in the City Council since 1943!!. The last Republican Mayor was in the late 1960's.The City Republican Party is in total disarray. The Election Board has problems every election finding enough Republican Poll Judges as the city-wide ratio of Democratic registrations to Republican registrations is now 17 to 1. In my election district in NE Baltimore there are only 124 Republican registered voters and 905 Democratic registered voters. In the 2008 Elections only 413 voters, all Democrats, cast votes in my precinct. Western Maryland and part of the Eastern Shore are Republican areas and in the General Assembly, no Republican member heads a committee. |
|
|
| (472404) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jul 10 00:10:08 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Jul 9 20:43:52 2009. Western Maryland and part of the Eastern Shore are Republican areas and in the General Assembly, no Republican member heads a committee.This isn't anything special. It's common in American legislatures for committee chairmanships to be held exclusively by members of the majority party. |
|
|
| (472626) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jul 10 16:57:51 2009, in response to Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 21:43:14 2009. too many syllables for them, you'll have to dumb it down. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 11 |
||