Bill from NYC Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Enjoy your $50 steak and $15 grapes. But hey, at least the "working man" will be protected, right? 710719[/snapback] Joe, I would rather eat pasta and keep child molesters and gang members away from my children. I might also save a few bucks by not having to fund complicated births of anchor babies, nor the cost of housing extra prison inmates. Oh yeah, I could also do without a few new anti-biotic resistant strains of TB, but that is just me. We all have different likes/dislikes, ya know?
Bill from NYC Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Like it or not, cheap labor keeps America going. And it has from the beginning. 710724[/snapback] Can't argue with this. Do you think that slavery was OK?
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Can't argue with this. Do you think that slavery was OK? 710729[/snapback] Not in the least, to answer an almost rhetorical question. I'm all for systemic change. The problem here is that people are voluntarily submitting to being a part of the cheap labor process. So you have businesses looking to exploit people, and people willing to be a part of that exploitation because things aren't even nearly as good back home. We can only control one end of that and while I wish we could legislate ethics and get companies to always do the right thing, it's been tough thus far.
KD in CA Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 What, you haven't been a victim of the rampant flag-burning? It's epidemic, you know. I actually burned one last week. Tattered, faded, had a rip in it. Meant to do it a while ago.... But I did give it a proper military ceremony --- I wore a boonie hat that got my brother through a tour in Afghanistan (he's on his second now), saluted with my right hand and held a St. Pauli Girl in my left. 710726[/snapback] Buring the flag while drinking a Kraut beer?? Wassa matter with you? We need a constitutional ammendment requiring people to drink Sam Adams or Miller while burning the flag.
Alaska Darin Posted June 20, 2006 Posted June 20, 2006 Enjoy your $50 steak and $15 grapes. But hey, at least the "working man" will be protected, right? 710719[/snapback] Fear mongering, ye of no limits...
Albany,n.y. Posted June 20, 2006 Posted June 20, 2006 Have you noticed what the Republicans have been doing of late? They have been forcing the Democrats to actually take stands on issues. They brought up the flag vote, the Iraq vote and the gay marriage vote (I think there were other issues, but I cannot think of them right now). This is the last thing that the Dems want going into mid-term elections. They just wanted to bash the Reps without standing for anything. Now, they will have a record for which the Reps can bash them. Smart move. 710492[/snapback] These are not real issues. They are BS drum up the base issues that do not have any affect on anyone's life. A)Flag vote, that really keeps everyone safe. Total non-issue. B) Gay marriage vote? Why does anyone care unless 1) They think homosexuality is a choice & 2) They feel guilty because since they consider it a choice, at some point they have considered it. If you're not gay, it has no affect on your life. If you are gay, it gives you another choice that you don't currently have. So really the only ones who should be concerned about gay marriage are gay people who want to be married. If a gay couple moves next door, is it going to affect you, I think not. Maybe you'll have to teach your kids that some people aren't the same as you, but what's so bad about that as long as you don't teach them to hate. C) We're not leaving Iraq during this presidency. When the next presidential election takes place, the candidates will be on record of their plans for Iraq and the voters can choose accordingly. Once again, due to the fact we're not leaving, a total non issue.
KRC Posted June 20, 2006 Posted June 20, 2006 These are not real issues. They are BS drum up the base issues that do not have any affect on anyone's life. A)Flag vote, that really keeps everyone safe. Total non-issue. B) Gay marriage vote? Why does anyone care unless 1) They think homosexuality is a choice & 2) They feel guilty because since they consider it a choice, at some point they have considered it. If you're not gay, it has no affect on your life. If you are gay, it gives you another choice that you don't currently have. So really the only ones who should be concerned about gay marriage are gay people who want to be married. If a gay couple moves next door, is it going to affect you, I think not. Maybe you'll have to teach your kids that some people aren't the same as you, but what's so bad about that as long as you don't teach them to hate. C) We're not leaving Iraq during this presidency. When the next presidential election takes place, the candidates will be on record of their plans for Iraq and the voters can choose accordingly. Once again, due to the fact we're not leaving, a total non issue. 710973[/snapback] Where did I say anything about the issues being important? You said it yourself, it is being used to drum up the base (of both parties). It seems like you are making my point for me. Thank you.
Albany,n.y. Posted June 20, 2006 Posted June 20, 2006 You're welcome. I just don't think it is smart to use drum up the base issues, because the majority doesn't belong to any base and will eventually get tired of the politicians wasting their time and our money and will vote all these bums out. Then in a few years we'll have to vote the bums out that replaced the other bums. Maybe it's as simple as Politicians=bad.
KRC Posted June 20, 2006 Posted June 20, 2006 You're welcome. I just don't think it is smart to use drum up the base issues, because the majority doesn't belong to any base and will eventually get tired of the politicians wasting their time and our money and will vote all these bums out. Then in a few years we'll have to vote the bums out that replaced the other bums. Maybe it's as simple as Politicians=bad. 710993[/snapback] ...and that would be a good thing. Congressional representation has morphed into something that would have embarassed the founding fathers. The whole thing needs a major overhaul, or to just be scrapped and started over. Of course, we all know that will never happen, so voting the bums out would be a good first move. Making issues of this stupid stuff makes the Dems focus on it and the Reps will use it to keep the Dems focused on it. The Dems then need to scramble to find out what their position should be to get the most number of votes. This creates a divide within the party. A divided party will not win. Smart move for the Reps. Does it accomplish anything other than help Reps keep power? Nope. Should the Reps be more focused on things that are actually important? Yup. Will it happen? Nope. Meaningful work requires tough and not always popular decisions. There is no way in hell that anyone will tackle anything of any importance or substance until the elections are over. Therefore, you are stuck with stupid crap until at least the middle of November.
Taro T Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 ...and that would be a good thing. Congressional representation has morphed into something that would have embarassed the founding fathers. The whole thing needs a major overhaul, or to just be scrapped and started over. Of course, we all know that will never happen, so voting the bums out would be a good first move. Making issues of this stupid stuff makes the Dems focus on it and the Reps will use it to keep the Dems focused on it. The Dems then need to scramble to find out what their position should be to get the most number of votes. This creates a divide within the party. A divided party will not win. Smart move for the Reps. Does it accomplish anything other than help Reps keep power? Nope. Should the Reps be more focused on things that are actually important? Yup. Will it happen? Nope. Meaningful work requires tough and not always popular decisions. There is no way in hell that anyone will tackle anything of any importance or substance until the elections are over. Therefore, you are stuck with stupid crap until at least the middle of November. 711006[/snapback] Of course, after the elections are over, then you can't get anything done because you have a "lame duck" Congress even though 90+% of them are likely coming back. Then in '07, you don't have to get anything done because there is no urgency as the sitting Congress critters have 2 years to get stuff done and you really don't want to rush things. Then in '08, you can't get anything done because it's an election year and no Congress critter wants to take a stand on an issue. I forget, when does the cycle end?
OnTheRocks Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 just caught some of George Allen on Imus this morning. This guy.....wow! no doubt he is a smart guy but he sounds like Al Gore in 1992. He drones on and on and on.....takes 10 minutes to answer a yes or no question. he would have a tough time winning a VP nod in '08.
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 I forget, when does the cycle end? 711536[/snapback] When the last ember of Rome is finally extinguished.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 I meant to post an observation the other night. Just thought that I would add in my two cents. I don't think, despite the pundits and everyone else's statement to the contrary, that Hillary is running. My sense is that she isn't and would rather be a kingmaker in the Senate. Look for her as Dem Leader in the Senate in a few years. Also, on that list Ken neglected dark horses in both parties. I think the nominations will go to some of that ilk, a governor or former governor. Interesting that John Edwards is up in most Dem straw polls. Kerrey is a has been. Gore less so, but can't make it over the top. McCain has too many enemies. Allen is an idiot. On the GOP side, Halley Barbour (MS) would be formidable. Barrack Obama is too green and the name from a P.R. standpoint causes problems. Frist could suprise folks, he is a calming influence, if not the brightest politician. He lives on being underestimated. Look for some one else to come forward or some of the under estimated to gain traction. I get the sense on both sides, folks are looking for a new face.
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 I meant to post an observation the other night. Just thought that I would add in my two cents. I don't think, despite the pundits and everyone else's statement to the contrary, that Hillary is running. My sense is that she isn't and would rather be a kingmaker in the Senate. Look for her as Dem Leader in the Senate in a few years. Also, on that list Ken neglected dark horses in both parties. I think the nominations will go to some of that ilk, a governor or former governor. Interesting that John Edwards is up in most Dem straw polls. Kerrey is a has been. Gore less so, but can't make it over the top. McCain has too many enemies. Allen is an idiot. On the GOP side, Halley Barbour (MS) would be formidable. Barrack Obama is too green and the name from a P.R. standpoint causes problems. Frist could suprise folks, he is a calming influence, if not the brightest politician. He lives on being underestimated. Look for some one else to come forward or some of the under estimated to gain traction. I get the sense on both sides, folks are looking for a new face. 713146[/snapback] No way Bill "$100 gas rebate" and "AIDS from handshakes" Frist gets close to beating out McCain and his star power. I'm not saying McCain wins, but Frist is a non-entity in this next election. He is the leader of a Senate that has accomplished next to nothing.
KRC Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Frist could suprise folks, he is a calming influence, if not the brightest politician. He lives on being underestimated. 713146[/snapback] Frist is seen as too weak within his party. There is no way he wins the nomination.
UConn James Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Frist is seen as too weak within his party. There is no way he wins the nomination. 713217[/snapback] Nevermind that he was for the "culture of life" before he was against it e.g. Schiavo, stem cells. These among his numerous flip-flops in the past couple of years trying to promise all things to all people. Frist is bad news, showing he's willing to abandon core convictions to go with the flow based on opinion surveys. ----- Chris Dodd is considering running? Heaven forbid --- that might cut into his booze consumption (like his father)! Or not.
Johnny Coli Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Frist is a non-entity in this next election. He is the leader of a Senate that has accomplished next to nothing. 713178[/snapback] I wouldn't quite say "nothing". The GOP voted to stick with the Bush/Cheney "Stay the course"© plan for Iraq, despite the fact that a majority of the american people see a tarpit up ahead and not a plan. They've dipped into the Rove vat of slime and reduced the Iraq war debate to focus-tested sloganeering instead of a reasonable discussion on when, if ever, we can leave. They managed to kill any and all investigations into the NSA wiretaps and the CIA leak. They managed to shoot down an increase in minimum wage while simultaneously handing a tax break to wealthy heirs and giving themselves a raise. They got their nut base fired up with self-serving gay marriage and flag-burning amendment votes. They've handed Bush even more power than he already took for himself, all the while pretending to be outraged. They've placed two right wing conservative judges on the Supreme Court. They confirmed one of the the architects of the NSA spying scandal for the highest intelligence post in the US. I'd say they've been pretty busy.
Chilly Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Nevermind that he was for the "culture of life" before he was against it e.g. Schiavo, stem cells. These among his numerous flip-flops in the past couple of years trying to promise all things to all people. 713223[/snapback] Ya know, I'm not saying this is the case in Frist, but the whole flip-flopping thing is overused. Once in a while it aint a bad thing to move beyond what you believe and listen to the polls
UConn James Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Another Republican, and probably the only one of the ones mentioned I would consider voting for, is Mitt Romney (Gotta do something about that name, tho. Then again they ran a guy named Dubya....). A Northeast Republican is a different animal than in the rest of the country. NE Repubs generally veer away from the social politics or are more willing to come to an agreeable compromise on them, and they run based on fiscal policy (whether they're any good at fiscal policy....). In New England there seems to be a belief that people want a Dem legislature to make the laws, but they want a Repub governor to have the last word on budgeting and to implement said laws. Romney has a history of taking over when things get effed up and turning it around --- 2002 Olympics, coming into a really difficult situation in Mass. There's been several times when his leadership and desire to just jump to and solve problems have had me nodding my head, not the least of which was the serious flooding last year when a major dam broke. He showed up and asked the engineers what they needed and got the eff out of the way, then set up a plan to check all of the dams in the state so the same thing might not happen again. Most recently was his role in getting universal health insurance for Mass residents.
OnTheRocks Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Another Republican, and probably the only one of the ones mentioned I would consider voting for, is Dick Cheney
Recommended Posts