 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Date: 30 May 12 - 11:59 PM I definitely agree, John. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 12:29 AM Songwronger, This is so typical of these know nothings to TRY to insult you, instead of ANY fact finding discussion. They do it all the time. Don, at least sent a link of the 'accomplishments' of Obama's term...the link was of course, from the 'Progressive' website...which at least is an attempt. There were some links, that I've been running down to check out the story...However, sending me that link would be the equivalent of sending them a Rush Limbaugh link, to prove 'conservative' point of view! These guys know very little about what they are talking about..and Bobert even less(but we love him anyway....at least he appreciates good music!). Don makes up a lot of stuff, and tries to define your thoughts for you..as if he is more capable than you thinking for yourself...then interposes all the hate and bigotry he perceives you MUST have...even if you don't have any. John,..well John just jumps in occasionally, with his usual snide attitude, but once in a while has a lesser heard talking point. NONE of them have a clue, or are willing to acknowledge, that the two party system has been overrun with corruption......banksters contributing to both sides, so both sides are beholden to them, so no matter who wins, their is a debt/favor to return.....they are still brain-locked into the wishful thinking that there really is a difference of the two parties in their agendas, and they can't seem to grasp, that the goal of the corrupt elite is using both the parties to achieve their goal of total domination. They haven't clocked, yet, that the bills and laws, passed by one party, is rarely retracted by the other, once the other party assumes 'power'....while, in the meantime we just slip further into losing our freedoms, and the bankster/corporate/government puppet masters erect themselves a kings....and the people are the subjects.......hey, some people like it that way....the grass is always greener on the other side, to some short sighted fools!...as long as they THINK there is something FREE, that they are going to get. Regards Songwronger..I've seen your posts...you know the deal! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger Date: 31 May 12 - 12:32 AM Well, if I'm elected Miss America, I will try to bring Truth, Justice and the American Way back into American life. I will do this by starting a petition to make Mr. Obama stop lynching blacks in southern Libya. The practice had died out under Mr. Kadaffi, but after Mr. Obama did what he could to bomb the country back into the stone age, the practice started up again. And Mr. Obama doesn't do anything to stop it. I will start a petition called "Please don't Lynch anymore Negroes in Libya" and try to get liberal support for it. I will dedicate my year's reign to this project alone, and after spending thousands of hours appealing to hundreds of liberal groups, I will present the petition (with all its dozen or so signatures) to Mr. Obama. And now I'll twirl my baton to the tune of "Shot me a Snapper an' now I Wanna Cry." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger Date: 31 May 12 - 12:44 AM Yes, GfS, there is a lot of agendizing here. I figure most of the people are old and feel their futures rely on not making waves. The pension and all that. But then there are some, like Bobert, who know that Obama's a bank huckster, same as G. W. Bush was. And they're fighting the same wars. So, domestic policy is the same, and foreign policy is the same--one national party with two faces. A third grader could see that. And the old people may turn away from that truth because they don't have much time left and want to be left alone, but what's Bobert's excuse? I don't really care what he thinks, because he kills wildlife to protect housecats, while he endorses warfare. How could you care what someone like that thinks? His logic is beyond unsnarling. It's sure funny when he froths though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 01:51 AM About 4 or 5 years ago, during the last presidential primaries, i put it this way: You get into the ring with a boxer, he hits you with a right, another right, then a left, a right and another left....same boxer, just different hands. The idiots are going to try to fight the hands....not the boxer!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 08:50 AM Well, John P... If districts were competitive that would force people to moderate... What we have now are "safe" districts where folks can just camp out with the most radical positions and be elected... The entire Tea Party comes from such districts... If we are going to fix things then we need people who, if they want to be re-elected, will have to work toward compromise... I personally believe that the ideas that we progressives hold would get a fairer shake if everyone had input and elected officials knew that they were going to have to explain their positions to a balanced district... My 2nd idea is this: Appoint the House of Reps by lottery and give them 4 year terms... Yeah, you'll get a few jerks, tin foilers and morons... But you'll also get some purdy smart folks as well... William Buckley suggested this 30 years ago and it was one of the things with which Buckley and I agreed... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P Date: 31 May 12 - 09:39 AM Well, I see your point about safe districts producing politicians who don't have to act in a balanced way. On the other hand, maybe a district made up entirely of conservatives or liberals should have a strongly partisan representative. The real answer, of course, as with so many things, is an educated electorate. And a basic expectation that our pubic officials tell the truth to the best of their ability. I suppose that a district based solely on geography, if it contains 90% liberals, means that the conservative 10% would be always unrepresented. I rather like the idea of appointing Congresspeople by lottery. Think of all that talent and brains out there in the heads of people who would rather be gored by rhinos than subject themselves to a political campaign. For some reason, though, there's always an "on the other hand". On the other hand, have you been on jury duty lately? The last three times I've been, more than half of the people have been too ignorant and thoughtless to function in any official capacity. Again, we need an educated electorate. Have you noticed the attacks by the Republicans on people for being educated? And the push for "charter schools"? They've already got religious schools pretending to offer a real education. An educated populace is not the friend of the party that depends on people's ignorance and prejudices to sell it's essentially anti-social agenda. Until we start educating all our children to a high standard, we won't really be able to move forward. And I don't see that happening in this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 09:57 AM The difference between jury duty and what I'm talking about is the pool... Juries in certain areas just don't have much from which to draw... Now if that poool were to include the entire state, it would be very different... Except in states like West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina and a few others where educational levels are low... But I'd love to see the lottery picks from California and New York... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 12:30 PM Bobert, in response to Songwronger's post: "Come on, BIG WRONGer... Tell us fuckin' plan... Come on... Cat got yer tongue??? Easy to fire shots, ain't it ****************asshat******************??? Bring your plan on!!! Serious business... What is your plan???" How about cleaning up the corruption in the existing plans, and bureaucracies, before trying to get us to swallow another 'great new idea'...Somehow these bozos want us to be gullible enough to foist more bullshit on us. Can't get further into details..but gotta run~! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Little Hawk Date: 31 May 12 - 12:35 PM How's it going at the mudwrestling championships? Do we have a winner yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 01:00 PM Little Hawk, Does it matter??..The 'winner' won't be 'We The People'. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Date: 31 May 12 - 03:38 PM I will no longer be responding to the attacks of vulgar, ignorant nincompoops. There is a political campaign to wage, and I will be participating. I don't have the time to respond to the babblings of nitwits or try to open closed minds. After all, there might not even be a mind in there! #### From a review of an excellent book entitled First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea, by Paul Woodruff. Americans have an unwavering faith in democracy and are ever eager to import it to nations around the world. But how democratic is our own "democracy"? If you can vote, if the majority rules, if you have elected representatives--does this automatically mean that you have a democracy? In this eye-opening look at an ideal that we all take for granted, classical scholar Paul Woodruff offers some surprising answers to these questions.Some important points that Woodruff makes: public officials were chosen, not by vote, but by lottery from the citizenship at large. It was considered to be the duty of every citizen of Athens to be well-educated and up on current events. After all, you might be called upon to make important decisions that would affect the whole city-state. Length of term was specified. And at the end of a public official's term, his performance would be judged by a jury of 501 citizens (odd number to avoid ties, also chosen by lottery, and large enough to be essentially immune to bribery), and based on that judgment, would be awarded honors if he did well by the citizens—or he could be censured, disgraced, or even banished if he fouled up. Athenian democracy did have its flaws. One major flaw was that women were not regarded as full citizens and were not eligible to be called on for public service, nor could they vote in general plebiscites. There were contemporary Athenians who spoke out against this, saying that by excluding women from these proceedings, Athens was failing to utilize—wasting—half of its intellectual power. The Afterward in the book is entitled, "Are Americans Ready for Democracy?" Good question. Good book. Get it. Read it. Learn. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 04:44 PM I'm not mud-wrestling... I've put out real ideas here... The mud wrestler isn't wrestling with me but himself... When I see ideas and not attacks then maybe we can get to mud wrestling... You know the difference, LH... Shame... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 09:30 PM I think that the 'uncommitted' voters are mostly coming from that group of people, who want a government that doesn't fuck with them or their livelihoods, and/or family structure, and well-being. They don't see either candidate that they can talk themselves into, who can, either make it better...or, stop making it worse. Why else wouldn't you decide and be 'Uncommitted'? ....and NO, they aren't believing either side's propaganda, either...not even the Tea party, the Progressive's, the Libertarian's or registered 'Independent's'.....frankly, I think there is a rather large group of the electorate, who, for good reason, just DO NOT believe or trust the shit that comes out of Washington, and presented to us 'for human consumption'. I think I may fall into that category...and why not??...I've been right, more often than not....by a long shot....along with others, who are like-minded. Respectfully, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 09:39 PM Sorry, more free association tin foil... Can you ever present a policy position, GfinS, rather than yet another attack on this or that??? We all know exactly what you hate... Now tell us what you don't hate... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P Date: 01 Jun 12 - 12:42 AM I think there is a rather large group of the electorate, who, for good reason, just DO NOT believe or trust the shit that comes out of Washington I think everyone I know doesn't believe the shit that comes out of Washington. It is clear that most politicians, on the left and the rights, are more interested in keeping their jobs -- and power, and money -- than in doing their jobs. We don't get to choose the best people available -- for the most part, we get to choose among those who cater to the parties and to the extremes within the parties. There is still, however, a clear difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are much worse when it comes to telling lies and fostering intolerance. From my point of view, most Democrats are slightly right of center, and the entire Republican establishment has fallen off the right edge. I get tired of hearing people refer to Obama and Clinton as liberals. They really aren't. But they are so much better than the alternative that it makes voting easy. I used to sometimes vote for Republicans who seemed honest and were doing a good job. Now, however, the Republican party has a series of extremely conservative litmus tests, and any candidate that doesn't pass muster doesn't get supported by the party. This makes it impossible to vote for them, since their votes are dictated by party hacks that no one ever elected, and, being politicians, they have to play along in order to keep their all-important power and money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Jun 12 - 12:42 AM "they aren't believing either side's propaganda" Then why are "they" predominantly spouting propaganda? I will believe all the "I am independant, both sides are evil" hoo-haa the moment I see one single solitary post that does not follow the FAUX/Tea Party/Libertarianoidish mantra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jun 12 - 12:56 AM That's precisely my position as well, John. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: akenaton Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:00 AM It does matter who is slightly "better" , or slightly "worse". To bring about any sort of change that is measurable,the whole apparatus requires to be dismantled. Citing "conservative" or "progressive" viewpoints as wrong or evil, simply keeps the same flock of vultures in power. A new structure of society will need a little of both....the egalitarianism of the liberals, without the idiocy of much of the "rights" legislation. The personal responsibility and freedom of thought championed by the conservatives, without the reliance on war and might as the final arbitrator. While we are stuck ing the current "money game" the new society will be unachievable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: akenaton Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:02 AM Sorry that should be "Does not matter" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:43 AM I have to agree also, with a lot of John's post...on the most part. Where I have a problem, with the other part, is that SOME Democrats have yet to see that their whole deal, has been corrupted beyond WAY beyond any logical description of what they believe themselves to be, and that is vehicles for 'social programs', that, on the most part, having NOTHING to do with social change for the better, but vehicles for the 'banksters' to finance, through 'loans' in which they can charge interest, to make themselves more money and power...at the expense of fiscal responsibility, either for the individual, family, businesses, or country...then they mask it into a quasi-form of responsible 'socialism'...with them, at the top, dictating what the people MUST be compelled to do, think, act like, and behave....so to satisfy THEIR control...for their agendas! If that means forcing the people to sacrifice their freedoms, liberties and/or sovereignty, well, too bad!...it's for the 'overall good'(for them!) The rank and file, believers then in turn, get nasty, and project onto others, that we are 'hateful', 'bigots', divisive, non-compassionate, 'enemies' that need to be 'conquered' into submission...of the bankster's/corporate/government CONTROL. Now I guess you can somehow justify all that...however, the mindset that we Americans have grown into, and live into, is that, based on the Constitution, we are supposed to guaranteed freedom, ('endowed by 'our Creator') as long as our WILL does not intrude and infringe over the rights of others, and vice-versa. As it is now, that OUR rights are being trampled beyond recognition. When before, we'd go to war, to defend that freedom if our rights to that freedom were threatened, and we kicked ass, now we go to war, to protect the 'interests' (read: greed and control) of the bankster/corporations....and told that it is really 'patriotism'!! We have become a country where our national defense, has been turned into a 'military for rent'....and this practice has been going on, through the hands of both political parties....and the American public instinctively KNOWS, that they are exhausted, supporting agendas that are wearing them out!!!...and consequently, support for either Obama or Romney is NOT enthusiastic, the people are suspicious of both of them, for different reasons, perhaps.....and the 'Uncommitted' numbers are huge. Now don't be mistaken, I DO NOT promote the divisions, nor have a political posture for anyone to 'subscribe' to....I am merely articulating the reasons of the unsettled undercurrents, that is growing in vast numbers, of common folk in this country. The whipping up of enthusiastic 'support' by the bankster's corporate media, to bend into submission people to 'settle for the lessor of their two evils', is only their barometer, to gauge the successes of 'crowd control' of the masses..............I don't think that, in a clear mind, that I can give them that.......BUT, as a musician/composer/writer, I can remind people who and what they really are!!!! Let the people decide for themselves what they want to do with it...as long as it does NOT infringe on the rights of others. There, that wasn't too hard to articulate....once the dust of political partisanship bickering has settled, a little bit. now, if only that same dust, doesn't get into the way, of seeing clearly.......................... Regards To All Those Other Musicians Out There Doing Folk...Reminding Folks! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:49 AM Akenaton...We cross threaded.....You done good!!! Your post is spot on! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P Date: 01 Jun 12 - 10:46 AM While we are stuck in the current "money game" the new society will be unachievable. This is true. Unfortunately, most people are too ignorant, lazy, and greedy to do anything about it. I think this is why "communist" governments seem to end up being totalitarian. They get fed up with waiting for the masses to wake up, so they decide to force the changes. But, of course, the people who are in charge get into that position in part because they are seekers of power. They end up acting like their predecessors, just with different words. But the result is the same: control other people and get rich. I disagree that supporting one viewpoint over another is pointless. It may feed the greed heads, but so does everything else. We can't just stop living, buying food, paying the mortgage, paying taxes, driving cars, etc. Given that I can't change my fellow citizens into socialists, I will fight the smaller fights: civil rights, reproductive rights, anti-war, and some corporate/banking regulations instead of none. Obama has proven himself to be a war hawk, but he's still 100% better on that score than any Republican is allowed to be. I wish he would evolve faster, but at least he's doing it, unlike the return-to-a-past-that-never-really-existed Republicans, who want to put gay people, women, and blacks back in the closet/kitchen/ghetto. And they seem proud of it! Why aren't they worried about what the history books will say about them? Lester Maddox and George Wallace are not remembered as American heroes who fought to save the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Jun 12 - 11:22 AM The brinkmanship game we see being played by governments, bankers, multinationals versus 'the rest of the world' is not beyond redemption. It will require that people everywhere start pushing back. The problem in North America is two-fold: 1) Avoiding the constant surveillance (video, digital) populations are under 2) Over-turning laws that have been and are available for implementation which overthrow all rights people have traditionally though they had |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 12 - 11:24 AM Well, if the Repubs steal the 2012 election, which with all the 3rd world style rigging of elections is entirely possible, then watch for the most "totalitarian" government in the United States will have ever seen... Oh yeah, lots of stuff will get done: all bad for the masses!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:06 PM Bobert: "Well, if the Repubs.....(blah blah blah)" You'll NEVER understand 'what it is' with that kind of brain-lock. Get over it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:26 PM In terms of the two main parties, indeed there is little from which to choose. The question that stands is who controls your security forces? IF Obama has control and support from the various security and military forces arraigned against the American people, I think your democracy stands a chance. If not, you're truly and seriously screwed. It's hard to tell with Obama whether or not he's been 'bought' and whether the people there to protect him will do their jobs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:38 PM Well . . . I'd rather give my vote to someone who probably hasn't been bought than to someone I know damned well has been bought, paid for, and is owned outright. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:43 PM I knew someone would respond in that manner. However, that was pretty much what I said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 12 - 05:15 PM In every statehouse controlled by Republicans, disenfranchisement is occurring... That in itself is an alarming manner to try to hold power by denying opposition voters from voting... I donno??? We may look back at this in 10 years and go, "Yup, that was the beginning of a totalitarian fascist state... This is the kind of stuff that used to happen in 3rd world countries and the UN had to go in and supervise elections... The 4 biggest Supreme Court decisions in the last 50 years have been Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and the suit brought against the Affordable Care Act... The Republican Supreme Court has acted to bolster Republican power in 2 and is about to make it 3 for 3... Obama is the only thing standing between The Republicans and their Ayn Rand fascists state... That is not an exaggeration... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:10 PM Bobert: "That is not an exaggeration..." This guy is absolutely lost!..No Bobert, you're in a fantasy! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:15 PM Bobert, You are dead-on correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:19 PM Oops. Forgot the intended link: voter suppression in FL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:57 PM Dirty Tricks are a mainstay of US politics. That's a given. Indictable dirty tricks are not new either. Thing is, no one does serious time over it and when they do they get really great book deals, so it's easier to take than getting busted for a bag of grass or some illegal lightning. I figure that until we have elections in which the losers are shot, we'll have difficulties finding people who take the job itself seriously. I give Obama a standing ovation for the Health Act. With all its flaws--and there are many--it gives care to people who just didn't have it before. That alone would get him my vote were I an American. The bitching by the Republicans is a result of drug manufacturers, insurance companies and stock 'embezzlers' having funded their elections and now having to locate loopholes to keep their money comin' in. The Republicans are honest politicians in that once they're bought they stay bought. That said, I still have a great difficulty believing in legislators who are millionaires making decisions that affect poor people--and that means about half the USA. Most people do not chose to walk paths that make them earn less than they could at their chosen professions. One question: how many politicians are first lawyers? What's the next step up? If the figures are right, politics is it! Does that not tell us all something? (OK, so that's two questions.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:24 PM Dirty tricks and preventing millions of people who voted in 2008 from voting ever again are two different things, brucie... In South Carolina 80,000 older blacks have lost their right to vote for the sin of being born at home... No "certified birth certificate"... Tough shit... If you wanted to vote your parents should have have had more money and had you born in hospitals... That's the real deal... 21 states have now spent the last 2 years making voting harder and harder for blacks, students and immigrant citizens... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Jun 12 - 07:12 AM I am aware of that, Bobert. But it begs the question of why did the people of those states allow their legislators to disenfranchise people? I think the problem is much more fundamental than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Jun 12 - 11:38 AM Guest,999: "I am aware of that, Bobert. But it begs the question of why did the people of those states allow their legislators to disenfranchise people? I think the problem is much more fundamental than that." Right along with that, they got what they elected...and if who they elected, double crossed them, then perhaps, the electorate should wise up, learn more! One thing that the partisans count on, is that people will vote along party lines, instead of demanding better......something that partisan politics doesn't quite want people to do...that is quite evident even on here.... ...and Bobert, you are an extreme classic example of that!..(but we love you anyway). GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 12 - 06:48 PM They didn't allow these people to do these things... ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) has been busy since the 2010 election... They saw an opportunity to rig elections and in spite of Republicans running on "jobs, jobs, jobs" Republicans have put all their efforts in busting unions, disenfranchising voters and catering to the Pro-Life people... "Jobs, jobs, jobs" is only for elections... Once elected they never talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" again other than criticize Obama for not creating enough while knowing it their sandbagging that is keeping the economy from growing... Lowest % of increased government spending in 50 years... That means: no jobs... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Jun 12 - 06:53 PM Bobert: ""Jobs, jobs, jobs" is only for elections... Once elected they never talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" again.." I agree with you on this part, Bobert....You mean, like Obama's 'shovel ready jobs', and 'Change you can believe in'? and his appointed 'jobs czar', Jeff Immelt, who took $5,000,000,000 of our tax dollars to start jobs in China. How come you NEVER address that?...I know, its a Republican plot..they made him do it, huh? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Jun 12 - 10:14 PM I think Bobert is choking on another swig of moonshine...he can't answer that one....with an answer...instead he'll dish out another flimsy insult, thinking that will wash! ...It won't, nor will he THINK! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:14 AM If I am stuck in a paper bag, I would prefer Bobert in there with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Jun 12 - 01:03 AM Gust, it is truly rich that you rant on with your nonsense and taunt and accuse others who post rational statements of "not thinking." Since you yourself are a few cards short of a deck, all of your name calling is extremely ironic. You need professional help. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 12 - 09:44 AM One of the Republicans favorite BIG LIES is "The stimulus didn't create any jobs"... Of course, it created jobs... And lots of them... But the Republicans have their Citizens United so they can shout down facts... That is their strategy... Just pump as much $$$ as is required to buy up the government... American Future Fund??? What a joke... Wonder what the Repubs will do when Putin wakes up one day and decides that Russia oughta make buy up a chunk of the government for itself??? Or China??? Or the Taliban??? Citizens United says, "If you got the money, I got the time..." This country is headed toward Boss Hog's fascist little totalitarian state... Way may be there in short order... Then wonder what the GfinS's and TeaWorld will think??? "Well, gee, how did this happen???" Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Dupes... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jun 12 - 01:20 PM Bobert: ".."The stimulus didn't create any jobs"...Of course, it created jobs... And lots of them..." Yeah, manufacturing imaginary shovels for those 'shovel ready jobs'..only thing, is that the real ones were made in China!!! BTW, where did all that money go??? I guess you don't keep up with the jobs numbers...or you think the economy is thriving.... Actually, you can't make up stuff any weirder than you come up with!..must be that bag over your head, smelling TIA! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Jun 12 - 02:48 PM The job numbers - that is an old "glass half-full or half-empty" argument. They are increasing, they just aren't increasing as fast consistently as bean counters want each and every month, so markets take a plunge. But the point is, they are growing. You must be a glass-half-empty kind of guy, Gust. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Jun 12 - 07:50 PM Frank Rich tells us that these early primaries are no indicator of who will be elected. The problem Obama has is that the base is disappointed in him and may not show up to vote. That along with Florida's dictatorial governor disenfranchising voters daily may weaken Dems chances. If Romney gets in, prepare for a hot year. Occupy the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jun 12 - 11:02 PM Silly DriveL Rage: "They are increasing, they just aren't increasing as fast consistently as bean counters want each and every month, so markets take a plunge. But the point is, they are growing. You must be a glass-half-empty kind of guy, Gust." Now, there's a great attempt at 'spin'!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST Date: 04 Jun 12 - 12:04 AM Yes, GfS does need professional help. This is not an insult. There is ample evidence of true mental problems and I am sympathetic. I recommend to Bobert and SRS to simply not engage. There really is a mental issue here. I have the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jun 12 - 12:53 AM We can see it, but ignoring it (which I mostly do) or engaging, either one, are equally ineffective. He needs a cooling off period, away from Mudcat. If he keeps up the harping and sniping, one of these days a moderator will act and his absence will be involuntary. He would do himself a big favor to seek professional counseling and spend less time ranting at rational people. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jun 12 - 01:43 AM He is certainly as much of a disruption of any attempts at rational discussion as "Martin Gibson" was, and often even more rudely insulting. MG was eventually blocked. I'm expecting the same to happen to GfS any time now. Don Firth |