They listen to you, they listen to us, and run from YOU.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Get on them job creators Smoothy, like you get on them fat lazy job seekers.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
|
They listen to you, they listen to us, and run from YOU.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Get on them job creators Smoothy, like you get on them fat lazy job seekers.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
[QUOTE=talaniman;3385575]They listen to you, they listen to us, and run from YOU. [/quote}
There you go again.
Yeah guess we'll have to since it is already demonstrated that stimulus spending does squat except expand the role call of the government dependent.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Well if government shouldn't create jobs and job creators won't then who? You think all those unemployed are from government? No they were from the private sector, state and local governments.
The states got there stimulus money and the smart ones used the time to make adjustments but now they are on their own. Yeah go talk to your "job creators". Let me know how that works out for you while the fat lazy takers who lost their jobs, benefits, and homes go to Wall Mart, and the food stamp office. There is no place left to go and you guys holler about your rights, but try to pursue happiness with no money in a capitalist country.
Show a guy how to fish, and there ain't no fish. GREAT PLAN. Hope you are never tested as some of our citizens have been.
No, you don't know what you said otherwise you would not be using the same conjunction fallacy yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy
No, I've never voted for Obama.
Wall Street is doing great, as is the private sector, but those job creators aren't making jobs. Maybe they should change their names back to rich guys, and we get some new job creators.
Got any ideas where we can find someone like that?
Hello again:
Can I shift the conversation?? I say conservatives have moved way right. THEY say, oh no... We're STILL in the middle. It's YOU who have moved far left.
Now, I don't want to discuss WHO is right.. That will never be solved here... What I want to talk about is HOW we solve our problems, whether they're problems the right wing thinks we have, or the left, when each of us believe the OTHER guy is nuts?
excon
Then why start by basically calling us nuts?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Dear esteemed excon:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I can think of two that both parties can happily work on together:
1. Teach our youngsters that they don't have to look to gangs and to each other to get "love" and emotional/social support, and
2. Teach all students how to think (not regurgitate).
Respectfully,
WG
Hello again, Steve:
If you're willing to give up the job of saving the world because some Yahoo on the internet said you were nuts, then you have a much thinner skin than I thought..Quote:
Then why start by basically calling us nuts?
But, besides that, I think I was calling BOTH sides nuts, as viewed through each others perspective.. But, I can see we're going to get bogged down again.. Oh, well.. I'm TRYING to forge something here.
Excon
Some would say, you're ALWAYS trying. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Meet me at the Heights of Weehawken.Quote:
HOW we solve our problems, whether they're problems the right wing thinks we have, or the left, when each of us believe the OTHER guy is nuts?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-burr-duel.jpg
Maybe we don't solve them. These are age old issues in this country . I look at today's leaders and I don't see greatness. I don't see great compromisers like John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas,Robert Y. Hayne and Henry Clay in the Senate Chambers creating what turned out to be a series of temporary compromises (thanks to SCOTUS fatally undermining their efforts ) . I see Reid and the Scmuckster ,and McConnell and Jon Kyl (thankfully he's retiring ) .
So I'll propose something we both can agree on... term limits and throw the bums out until we get great leadership.
Still won't work - you need to curb the lobbying and the political "donations".Quote:
So I'll propose something we both can agree on... term limits and throw the bums out until we get great leadership.
What ? You don't believe in participatory democracy ?
If you really want change then its going to have to come from full disclosure and not the way it is being currently done in Washington. Translation for both sides: Stop the lies coming from either party and work at goals where you can meet and expand from there. It is not a difficult process but it does tend to be rather long because both sides actually have to listen and reflect on what the other is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Being ruled by faceless men in lobby's and PAC's is not democracy Tom it is a farceQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah like the teacher's unions ; the Sierra Club , all of hundreds of advocacy groups that commonly petition the government . Face it ;you only object to businesses doing what environmental organizations ,trade unions ,etc have been doing for decades .
Personally Tom I don't think any of it should be allowed
Oh dear, there's some heavy rationalization to arrive at that conclusion.Quote:
what ? You don't believe in participatory democracy ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Forget it Tom. Participatory democracy is quickly dying. I've been posting stuff to this effect for a while. But, hey - what would I know about such things.
Tom believes in the democracy of money, the guy with the most bucks rulesQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Clearly that is not the case . Money may or may not be a factor in deciding elections.. What I know is that you think only certain people are entitled to their 1st amendment right to petition the government individually ,or as a group.
There is a case to be made that as more people become informed the electorate can make better electoral choices, but a 4 hour wait to make that choice is ridiculous. That doesn't help the participatory society at all. Nor do the behind the scene shenanigans of special interest group who actually write the state laws, or lobby the federal government to write laws that unduly shifts influence from the electorate to monied interest, while defunding the protections to the electorate.
Talking about the Sierra Club again ? Or maybe the Aspen Institute;Earthjustice,Energy Action Coalition,Green For All,a group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives. they all have a major fingerprint on most of the environmental lawsQuote:
the behind the scene shenanigans of special interest group who actually write the state laws, or lobby the federal government to write laws that unduly shifts influence from the electorate
Or maybe you are talking about the AMA ,the NEA ,AFT ,AARP ,ABA ,ACLU ,the Center for American Progress ,Center for Reproductive Rights , or any of the 100s of similarly minded lib advocacy groups that routinely lobby and write progressive legislation.
Hello again, tom:
One of the reasons we find ourselves where we are, is that you PRETEND right wing groups like ALEC don't DO the same thing.Quote:
or any of the 100s of similarly minded lib advocacy groups that routinely lobby and write progressive legislation.
Excon
In all the alphabit soup that was mentioned the biggest one not mentioned in the news and headlines today is the NRA. Both sides have advocacy groups. The 2 major problems I see with the way politics are being run is an uninformed class of voters and a media that refuses to follow up on issues. (as in researching and reporting the truth in unbiased fashion.)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm not pretending that at all. I think it's perfectly acceptable unless there is corruption by the elected class. The laws if enforced cover that contingency . It's you that complains about money's influence.. but only when there is right wing or corporate advocacy .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If it is clearly not the case then why have you said that money could or could not be a factor?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Edit
Tut
The difference here Ex is that ALEC actually drafts the legislation to be rubber stamped. The process is made easy when you have a majority of politicians who are also a members of ALEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We can talk about non- participatory democracy, but when the politicians don't participate you have real problems.Who do you think drafted the voter I.D. laws?
And why??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Basically, because what you will eventually end up with is an hierarchical system of decision makers who are devors where by the only role of voting will be to decide who the power brokers are going to be. In other words, voting will be nothing more than deciding which faction of the oligarchy will make the decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's the short answer.
and as I said ,there is hardly an environmental law in the country that doesn't have Sierra Club's finger prints all over it . You want to know why Social Security is so hard to reform ? Because AARP uses membership fees to lobby Congress. That's the way the game is played. The only changes is which groups were excluded by various attempts at Federal Election "reform."Quote:
The difference here Ex is that ALEC actually drafts the legislation to be rubber stamped.
And the hoi polloi and the rest of the huddled masses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I see. So the Sierra Club, unions AARP etc are all members of the one umbrella organization, to which politicians are also members of said umbrella organization.
Is this what you are trying to tell me Tom?
Hello TUT:
No. What he's trying to tell you is that when the right wing does it, it's cool. When the left does it, it's not.Quote:
Is this what you are trying to tell me Tom.
Excon
No ,what I said often is that it's cool when BOTH sides do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, if that's the case then they need to organize themselves in that direction because the other side has already rationalized that process.
Well Tut .I think you are way too smart to believe that thousand page bills written in legalize has the authorship of the legislator that introduces it.
I go by the 1st amendment ;that says ,Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That is what advocacy and lobby groups do .
That would depend on the resources available and the ability to mobilize resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well Tom, I am sure many here, including Steve, who want the same thing to be true when it comes to freedom of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You and I are smart enough to know that in this day and age the Constitution is not standing as iconic piece of architecture. Perhaps it should but it doesn't.
Over the years SCOTUS has seen to that. They keep chipping away at the edifice. Give it time they will get to the redressing of grievances bit.
By the way, you've been awfully quiet about this since Hagel showed his utter incompetence to head our military. The' highlights' in case you missed them..Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No wonder former press secretary Gibbs said, “The disconcerting thing, obviously, for anybody that watched it was he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that, quite frankly, he knew was coming.”
But hey, like Obamacare and having to pass it before knowing what was in it I guess we should confirm Hagel so he can learn admin policies and how to run the military.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM. |