Simon
-
Posts
19,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Simon
-
-
Let me know when that legit third party comes in.I did(n't) like Hillary Clinton one bit... However, I would have voted for her
It's lemmings like you that make it impossible for 3rd parties to make more headway when you continue to vote for people you don't even like because they have a D or an R by their name.
YOU are part of the problem.
YOU, not somebody else, YOU.
-
You mean you don't find it ironic that you're introducing the guy's words as gospel, even though it's highly plausible that he may have an axe to grind? This is not a conclusion of an independent audit, but a parade in front of a congressional hearing. Excuse me if I don't buy it at face value at this point.
I introduced a Washington Post article as an example of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. If you don't like that source, there are a variety of others you can access. And of course the guy has an axe to grind, just like many others who have unsuccessfully attempted to work with this administration. I'd be pissed too if I'd put in all that work and some pack of jackasses not only dismissed it but wouldn't even acknowledge it.
And the regulations would have allowed California to exceed the federal limits, meaning that the most populous US state would have the capability to pre empt (supersede) federal laws. Are you ok w/ Roe v Wade ruling over states' rights?No, I tend to lean toward state's rights, although that is increasingly difficult as the world becomes a more complicated place.
As for California's attempted waiver, it strikes me as a secondary issue. The administration cited the weak proposal that they did enact after they blew off the EPA and Supreme Court. But I don't believe for a second that they would have ever even considered California's proposal regardless of the proposal the EPA tried to submit. They would have undoubtedly found another of a dozen reasons to reject the waiver request.
And regardless of surrounding minutiae my original point still stands; this administration is incapable of any kind of dialogue, flexibility, compromise or progress. Anything outside of their own absurdly narrow agenda is a non-starter which they won't even deign to consider. imo they are the weakest most embarrassing leadership and the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime.
At the very least we can only hope their gross incompetence and blustery cowardice has set fundamentalist radical conservatives and the religious right back a generation or three.
-
I also criticize Republicans, and think that they as corrupt as the 'other' party (maybe more so).
I know who I am as a man and know why I believe the things I do. It's called core values.
You do recognize the progress that is being made over there or are you too blinded by the Messiah to recognize that fact?
I have never seen you criticize a Republican or praise a Democrat. I have never seen you do anything but spout "conservative" ideals and mock "liberal" ones.
You can call them core values but even then you're just repeating somebody else's ideas. You're a cheerleader for an agenda driven by somebody else and you think and say whatever your single-minded tenet wants you to.
And considering I have no intention of voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life, I'm hardly blinded by the guy you mock as the Messiah. But I'll listen to what he has to say; and I'll listen to what McCain has to say; and then I'll probably vote for somebody else.
But unlike you I'll listen to both of them (among others) and then vote for who I consider the best candidate, not who my conservative masters think is the right choice for me.
-
You just explained exactly why I'm different and you're too dumb to even realize it.
I associate myself with ideas, not political parties. Just because I'm consistently conservative, that doesn't invalidate my opinions.
Your points (have you ever even made any? smarmy thorns from your ivory tower are all I ever see) are invalidated because you're consistently conservative. And associating yourself with ideas is no different than associating yourself with political parties, particularly when they're not even your ideas.
When you follow every single idea of a certain tenet, you're nothing but another cheerleader. You can convince yourself otherwise but folks who don't blindly follow a single tenet can easily see it for what it is, even if you can't.
-
Are you trying to prove that the White House is consistently narrow-minded by introducing select quotes from former EPA employees testifying at a Congressional hearing set up to show that the White House is intransigent?
Former? Is that really your point?
Because the guy couldn't work with an administration that nobody else can work with either, that makes him unreliable somehow?
Obfuscation is beneath you.
Their agenda has been pretty consistent, steamroll over anything that would endanger executive authority. EPA's report would have allowed California the preferences they were seeking and thus had the potential to preempt federal legislation. That's the real fight, not the miraculous saving of the environment.EPA's report would have put them in a position where they had to decide on federal standards themselves, making California's maneuvering unnecessary and irrelevant. But since their agenda doesn't match up with the EPA and the Supreme Court, they'll just cover their ears again and pretend it doesn't exist until it's changed.
And I don't think they're nearly as interested in the authority of the executive branch as they are in the authority of their own administration.
-
Yeah, I'm a real cheerleader for a political party.
Find a post where I'm excited about anything the Republicans (or any political party) are doing and get back to me, jackass.
All you do is bash those you consider "libs" and defend those you consider "conservatives".
Following idiot lockstep with all tenets of conservatism is no different than following idiot lockstep with all tenets of a political party. It's the same blind devotion exhibited by cheerleaders and morons who would rather be part of the right "team" than be different or think with any nuance.
You're no different than the rest of the Molsons or Wackas of this board.
-
Which is all that matters to people like you.
Says the guy who does nothing but bash libocrats and defend conservicans.
You're also those "people like you".
NO WAY!! I did not know that. Please forgive me for my moronic post to you. I'm such a moron.< Simon >
If you actually believe that bullshlt you should reconsider who's the moron.
-
Yea sure, I didn't read it.
No, you didn't. Because you don't actually "read" anything.
You just look to see if it has an R or a D beside it. If it has an R it's obviously holy scripture. If it has a D its not even worthy of consideration.
You're not a reader, you're a cheerleader.
So, smart moderator guy with 10 zillion posts, enlighten me as what Obama's plan is for getting out of Iraq, because I can't figure it out.I have no idea how anybody is going to get us out of the mess that your heroes put us into. Personally I'm still leaning toward dicing Iraq into 3 "states" to at least try and keep these factions that have been warring for centuries somewhat at arm's length.
I was just commenting on how predictable your cheerleading is and how repetitive your posts are on this board. You are exactly the same as the Democrats you so despise.
-
The fight isn't about clean air, it's whether to open the window to let states run federal regulations.
Are you kidding me?
This is exactly the kind of stuff that I was talking about. The White House doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from their agenda so they refuse to consider viable information and send it back to be resubmitted to fit their needs, regardless of whether its accurate or appropriate. It has nothing to do with rapidly diminishing states' rights, it's about an inflexible, pig-headed administration that would rather live in the 12th century than the 21st.
These guys are the antithesis of courageous leadership and American sensibility.
highlighting the extent to which Bush administration officials continue to resist mandatory federal limits on emissions
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee disclosed documents showing that the White House had overruled EPA's findings on the impact of vehicle emissions
the fact that EPA changed its proposal under White House pressure will delay implementation of a national cap on carbon emissions
the original document...included detailed alternative approaches on how to regulate greenhouse gases from fuels, vehicles and stationary sources such as power plants.
One EPA official said agency staff had encountered fierce opposition from Bush appointees on several of these sections. "They don't even want us to talk about alternatives"
-
Right. And the "other" side never does that. Got it. Thanks.
Sure anytime, cuz that's exactly what I was saying.
-
Which part don't you agree with?
He probably didn't even read it, just saw it was related to somebody from the "other" side and felt the need to mock it. If one of his conservative heroes had said the exact same thing he'd be falling all over himself to defend its brilliance.
-
What does that say about his ability to pick out good advice from bad? Isn't that the biggest slam on the current administration?
I'd say the problem has always been more of a refusal to even acknowledge advice that didn't come directly from an appointee who's just telling them more of what they want to hear. It seems that whenever somebody proffers information that doesn't support what they already steadfastly believe, they simply reject it out of hand w/ even considering other possibilities. They're like a bunch of 4 year olds with their hands over their ears singing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA whenever somebody makes a suggestion.
-
It is true. It reminds me of the days when we signed guys like Sam Rogers and Jerry Ostroski to long term deals.
Sam Rogers was a real good player, just not as good as the money that was thrown at him. KMitchell actually reminds me a little of him and imo that's a good thing.
I have a Hunch we're not going to keep Crowell and that we'll be drafting a LB in one of the first 2 rounds next year.That would be exceedingly foolish, but not divergent from the Bills recent habit of unnecessarily creating holes for themselves.
-
I'm a jerk because I thought Viti wouldn't make the team, eh?
No, it's because you're reveling in a guys dream being shattered and using his disappointment as an excuse to rub something in other people's faces.
That's what makes you a jerk.
Congrats......
-
Here's how you learn to not be a stupid 23yo. You STFU when someone slaps you down because you're acting like a stupid ass. And I don't give a crap where his heart is. His head is up his ass and his irrational thinking "The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene" is not born of any reflective thought.
No arguments with that.
But if you slap him down too hard, he's going to tune you out and never learn from any of the wise things you might utter. Or he's going to hate you and automatically be wrong-headed about any sensible position you take.
Instead of actually learning, he'll just cling to dogma. And none of us is the better for that.
At least you didn't call him anything that had a "7" in it.
-
You. Dumb. Ignorant. Spoiled. Child......
I'm not sure there's ever been as dumb of a statement as your post above. Did you get a degree from Keane U?
Please tell us another tale of woe from your childhood or how you learned so "much" growing up. You're obviously staggeringly intelligent.
You dour old bastard give the poor kid a break. You sound like a grumpy 275 year old man. I bet you didn't know shlt either when you were 23. At least the boy's heart is in the right place. That's a start anyways.
I see that I fundamentally different views from some here......the poor have less opportunity than the wealthy do. To parallel your example of the 10,000/yr guy living off of muscatel to a real example of a poor urban black kid whose family is living off of Little Debbies. This poor kid has a much higher chance of ending up in jail and a much lower chance of ending up with a college degree. You can still say that there is an opportunity for this black kid, but it is hardly equal to the opportunities wealthier counterparts.
I think the fundamental difference is that you're a young pup in a roomful of stodgy 'ol crankbaits.
As for your example of the poor kid, he has the same opportunity as the rich kid. He has the opportunity of a free public education, which if he's diligent can lead to higher education. And if he's diligent there it can lead to an opportunity for a successful career. And if he's diligent in that it can lead to the opportunity for wealth. Which the government can then steal from him to help prop up the current loophole ridden tax codes which you want to continue.
He may have more obstacles than the rich kid, but he has the same opportunities. If he chooses not to take advantage of those opportunities because he knows the government will continue to give him free money, then it is not the responsibility of the citizens of the United States to encourage his sloth.
And $20/week is not going to make a difference in whether he's successful or not.
Any more than an extra $200/week is going to determine the rich kid's success.
Unfortunately, people take advantage of these programs like some take advantage of the tax code. When either of these things happen, we must hope that our gov't has some reform.I think we ought to reform the tax code so that nobody can take advantage of it.
Like maybe keeping people from taking advantage of these programs by getting rid of most of them. Or maybe some crazy idea like having everybody pay the exact same percentage so everybody's equal.
You know, the American Way?-)
-
True, but that person still needs that extra thousand just to eat. Whereas the $million/yr guy isn't going to be starving by losing 100 grand. To me, the opportunity of having food on the table is a huge lifestyle difference.
That guy making $10,000/year is taking home $200/week and eating government cheese. If he was taking home $180/week it wouldn't make a bit of difference to him because he'd still be eating government cheese.
Maybe he buys Milwaukee's Best Light instead of Bud Light.
Maybe he eats at McDonald's instead of Wendy's.
Maybe he lives in a hovel instead of a shack.
Whatever the case, 200/week compares to 180/week the same way that 2000/week compares to 1800/week. And if either guy doesn't like it they're both welcome to change their circumstances.
This country is built on the idea of equality and forcing one group of people to contribute a higher percentage of their income to government waste is inherently unequal.
I hate to say it, but we haven't been too democratic in recent years with the lobbyists having more influence on what happens in D.C. than your average American citizen.So your solution to our lack of democratic principles in recent years is to implement policy that continues to forgo democratic principles?
Besides, what you are talking about is the concept of Reaganomics, which basically allows the wealthy to exploit the poor.Reagan implemented fair and equal tax rates? Maybe I'll have to reconsider my incredibly low opinion of him.
And treating people equally does not even remotely resemble exploitation.
The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene.Kid, I don't even know what to say to you at this point.
By its very nature government is a highly inefficient, often corrupt entity. Allowing ti to intervene in anything serves primarily to make that endeavor more inefficient and corrupt.
One of the founding principles of this country is to give people opportunity. And if the guy making 10,000/year is sick of buying cheap muscatel he has every opportunity to change his circumstances. It is not now, nor has it ever been the purview of the US government to turn that guy into a lazy slob by giving him more money that they've forcefully extracted from a legitimately industrious person.
That's the kind of inane nonsense that has repeatedly destroyed every society which has become infected by it and I do NOT want to see it happen to the world's first bastion of freedom, choice and opportunity.
-
That $1000 means much more to the $10,000/ yr guy compared to the $100,000 does to the $1,000,000/yr guy.
I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. If you're somehow living on 10,000/year, you essentially have nothing. Making 1000 less means you still have nothing. There's really no more appreciable lifestyle difference for either the poor guy or the rich guy.
With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society.I'm all for noblesse oblige but when the act moves from voluntary to compulsory, you quickly begin moving away from the area of democracy.
And this still is the United States. At least for now anyways........
-
I'll never forget the first time I saw him in the UK huddle.
For a second I was actually trying to figure out why their LT was standing where the QB was supposed to.
When they broke and came to the line I must have laughed for 2 straight minutes.
-
A flat tax rate would favor the wealthy and be unfair to the poor and lower class.
How on Earth would everybody paying the same exact rate be unfair to somebody?
I'd appreciate an explanation because I really suck at economics.
And fwiw I make less than 100k and consider myself rich.
Probably because I grew up moving from one imminently condemned pile of bricks to another.
Like all things in life, it's a matter of perspective.
-
What course of action an administration chooses to pursue based on the findings of its experts and how they sell them is completely different from whether or not they accept the findings. I am unaware of any community findings that were 'sent back' to change the conclusion. Are you saying that there were NIE's that originally said Saddam was *not* looking to reconstitute his WMD programs?
The course of action had already been chosen and the experts actual input was as irrelevant as the administrations lame attempt to sell it.
Given that we live in a society ruled by a secretive and deceptive government I am not privy to exactly what was in the estimates. But they were related to Iraq and its military capabilities (or lack thereof). And they were repeatedly rejected by the White House with requests to alter them so they would more closely match with the administrations preconceived notions and align with actions they wished to (i.e. had already decided to) undertake.
-
So would Obama have fallen victim to the same thing Bush did, or is he magically different?
Would any other administration aside from our current one have repeatedly sent back intelligence reports in an effort to have them altered to fit their preconceived notions and a course of action that had already been determined?
Or is this administration just magically different?
-
The fact that you guys consider that completely benign, off-hand comment to be playing the race card actually says a whole hell of a lot more about you than it does the candidate.
-
[This is an automated response]
As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate.
Thank you.
heh heh heh...Simon is officially an old fart
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
I've been at camp the last ? days serving as one of the primary catalysts in what was essentially an Irish wake that lasted well over two weeks. I've been partying my ass off every day and night from 10 AM 'til 3-4 AM for 16 of the last 17 days. Last night I was skinny-dippin under the full moon at 5:00 AM and this morning I bid farewell to the last of the camp guests with shots of cheap whiskey at breakfast. I haven't had a hangover in over a week and I'm scared to death of what's coming.
I am now back home and am going to crank up the AC, open the back door, set a lounger next to it outside and see if I can't air-condition the deck. If anybody needs me I'll be relaxing in a mild coma with a book on my chest. Unless my hair is on fire, don't need me.
Thank you all and good night!