Post by: Scout26 on January 29, 2008, 11:14:26 AM
I almost voted for Fred just as a protest. But since he dropped out, there's no point in tilting against windmills. The rest of the local races were pretty straight forward. I also told the County and School board "NO" on their sales and property tax increase proposals.
Anyone else here voted early
Post by: Manedwolf on January 29, 2008, 11:45:53 AM
As for Fred, I was quite disappointed. He just didn't want it.
Post by: El Tejon on January 29, 2008, 11:52:06 AM
Indiana, rapidly moving into the new century--the 1900s.
Post by: Paddy on January 29, 2008, 12:05:42 PM
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
Post by: Fly320s on January 29, 2008, 12:34:17 PM
"Well I held my nose and voted today"
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
No, we have this government because people vote for, or allow, the Govies to run amuck. But we still don't get to choose who runs for office.
Post by: Paddy on January 29, 2008, 01:04:57 PM
"Well I held my nose and voted today"
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
No, we have this government because people vote for, or allow, the Govies to run amuck. But we still don't get to choose who runs for office.
You make it sound like we're just a bunch of consumers, forced to pick something off the storeowner's shelf. Oh, wait, that's what we are! Which is exactly what happens when you whittle down the middle class and sell the government to the highest (corporate) bidder.
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
Post by: Fly320s on January 29, 2008, 01:20:17 PM
Quote
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The problem is the people who want to be President (or Senator, Congressman, etc). They aren't running for altruistic reasons; they want the power, prestige, and money. The way they get elected, and stay elected, is to promise "free" things to the masses.
Those "freebies" are killing the common man, and businesses alike.
Post by: SomeKid on January 29, 2008, 01:36:55 PM
Post by: Lennyjoe on January 29, 2008, 01:47:52 PM
Why is that you ask, because a man with those traits doesn't have $10 + million to bankroll a campaign to run for POTUS.
Post by: seeker_two on January 29, 2008, 04:46:50 PM
"Well I held my nose and voted today"
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
There ya go. That's exactly why we have the government we've got.
No, we have this government because people vote for, or allow, the Govies to run amuck. But we still don't get to choose who runs for office.
You make it sound like we're just a bunch of consumers, forced to pick something off the storeowner's shelf. Oh, wait, that's what we are! Which is exactly what happens when you whittle down the middle class and sell the government to the highest (corporate) bidder.
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
I do hope you're referring to Teddy or Elenore.....
Post by: Bigjake on January 29, 2008, 05:26:06 PM
Quote
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
FDR?? Are you kidding me??
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 05:38:50 PM
Quote
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
FDR?? Are you kidding me??
Post by: Dannyboy on January 29, 2008, 05:43:05 PM
Which is exactly what happens when you whittle down the middle class and sell the government to the highest (corporate) bidder.
Click. Click. Damn, how do you change the channel on this thing?
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
They'd miss him getting two in the chest, one in the head, and the coroner's ruling of "suicide."
Post by: MrRezister on January 29, 2008, 06:04:10 PM
A morally courageous, ethical, constitution driven, country loving common man doesn't have what it takes to become the President of the U.S.
Why is that you ask, because a man with those traits doesn't have $10 + million to bankroll a campaign to run for POTUS.
Why is that you ask, because a man with those traits doesn't have $10 + million to bankroll a campaign to run for POTUS.
Hell, that sounds just like - oh, wait nevermind. I forgot that guy's not winning so we shouldn't vote for him.
As you were.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 06:10:47 PM
Well, today's [Strike]democrat[/Strike] candidates would walk up and tip him out of his wheelchair... And most of the voters would point, laugh, grab another can of Brawndo, The Thirst Mutilator, and change the channel until they hit American Idol...
They'd miss him getting two in the chest, one in the head, and the coroner's ruling of "suicide."
Fixed it for you. The GOP seems to be against national healthcare more than the other Democrats. Not to mention I hear a lot of "tough luck pal" type of quotes from GOP hardliners. They dont want to spend their money helping others with healthcare because it is not right to tax them and spend it on others.
They'd miss him getting two in the chest, one in the head, and the coroner's ruling of "suicide."
Post by: Boomhauer on January 29, 2008, 06:45:13 PM
Quote
The GOP seems to be against national healthcare more than the other Democrats. Not to mention I hear a lot of "tough luck pal" type of quotes from GOP hardliners. They dont want to spend their money helping others with healthcare because it is not right to tax them and spend it on others.
Your damn right we are against
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 08:32:24 PM
Post by: roo_ster on January 30, 2008, 01:27:22 AM
Quote
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
FDR?? Are you kidding me??
Folk who whine about GW taking liberties with executive powers can only invoke FDR as somehow a better alternative if they are woefully ignorant of history.
(That is the charitable eplanation.)
Post by: seeker_two on January 30, 2008, 02:15:20 AM
Quote
What we need is another champion of the common man. Either Roosevelt will do.
FDR?? Are you kidding me??
Folk who whine about GW taking liberties with executive powers can only invoke FDR as somehow a better alternative if they are woefully ignorant of history.
(That is the charitable eplanation.)
Far too charitable....and far too true....
Post by: Bigjake on January 30, 2008, 02:57:40 AM
Quote
Fixed it for you. The GOP seems to be against national health care more than the other Democrats. Not to mention I hear a lot of "tough luck pal" type of quotes from GOP hardliners. They dont want to spend their money helping others with health care because it is not right to tax them and spend it on others.
You can donate all of YOUR money to any ol' charity you like. Stay the hell away from mine. On second thought, go have a look see at Canadian and Brit socialized health care and come back when you get a clue.
Quote
Give me FDR over W any day of the week.
And you shriek about President Bush running roughshod over the constitution??
Again, come back when you have the slightest idea what you're talking about and can do it in an informed manner.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 30, 2008, 05:12:48 AM
GW didn't put all the Americans of Muslim descent into concentration camps after Sept. 11.
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 30, 2008, 05:27:04 AM
especially when they bring it on themselves... IMHO, they oughta make folks show cards to use those motorized wheelchairs at WallyWorld...
I agree with you 100 percent there. Apparently, "I'm fat and lazy" is a good enough excuse to get free motorized locomotion nowadays. Even people who WORK there are using them now...It's getting insane.
And FDR is the source of many a headache for me. So many times I hear people proclaim, "FDR WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER!" and I immediately know not to talk to them.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 30, 2008, 05:28:02 AM
GW didn't put all the Americans of Muslim descent into concentration camps after Sept. 11.
Yeah but, he's still the most evil, imperialistic, Nazi-ish, big oil sympathizing, war mongering, Constitution destroying president this country has ever had!
Post by: Silver Bullet on January 30, 2008, 06:55:25 AM
Quote
You can donate all of YOUR money to any ol' charity you like. Stay the hell away from mine.
This is actually correct. The Democrats are only compassionate with other people's money.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2008, 07:51:54 AM
Post by: roo_ster on January 30, 2008, 08:35:48 AM
Quote
You can donate all of YOUR money to any ol' charity you like. Stay the hell away from mine.
This is actually correct. The Democrats are only compassionate with other people's money.
So. Freaking. True.
I recall when Algore/ManBearPig released his 1997 tax return(1) and he had donated the princely sum of ~$400 to charity(2) on ~$200K in income. After advocating tax hikes on everybody else.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/15/gore.taxes/
What is true in the particular (Algore) is also true in the general: conservatives give more to charity than liberals:
...religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
* Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes
* Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%
* People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally "progressive causes" such as the arts and the environment
* Conservative "red" states give away far more of their incomes than liberal "blue" states do
* Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches - religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities
* Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person
* Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly
* A working poor family without welfare support gives, on average, more than three times as much money to charity each year as a family with the same total income that receives welfare support. In other words, poverty does not discourage charity in America -- but welfare does
* People raised in intact and religious families are more charitable than those who are not. For instance, married parents are 9 percentage points more likely to give money than divorced parents, and 29 points more likely than never-married parents
* Charitable giving spurs the economy: at the national level, a $1 increase in giving per person stimulates a $19 increase in GDP per capita
* Americans give far more money and are far more likely to volunteer their time than citizens of any European country. For example, the average American family gives three and a half times as much as a French family, seven times as much as a German family, and 14 times as much as an Italian family
* Charitable giving and volunteering improve physical health and happiness, and lead to better citizenship -- whereheas many government policies that discourage private charitable behavior have negative effects
(1) I am not particularly in favor of policritters releasing such documents, even if this one time it did manage to spank Algore on the johnson.
(2) I am in favor of social pressure to donate to charity, but vehemtly against using the law for suchj or raising taxes so that policritters can toss around more dollars.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 30, 2008, 08:55:40 AM
Either way I look forward to reading it.
Post by: Bogie on January 30, 2008, 09:57:56 AM
FWIW, a friend of mine used to be mayor in a county seat. He was irritated that they'd get a lot of welfare folks move in, because it was the source of the "services," and had a reputation for being "better" than surrounding counties/cities...
Sigh...
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2008, 11:41:35 AM
Post by: roo_ster on January 30, 2008, 03:23:14 PM
The NRA that prosecuted and jailed a launderer for charging something like $0.39 for pressing a shirt for a guy in a hurry when the NRA-mandated price control was ~$0.35.
The NRA that was admired by both Mussolini and the sawed-off Austrian corporal.
Post by: Bogie on January 30, 2008, 03:33:16 PM
Of course, Bush was probably into it somewhere too...
Post by: Paddy on January 30, 2008, 03:45:18 PM
Oh, wait. The Russian Revolution hadn't happened yet.
Sheesh. Mention FDR and the kneejerk foaming at the mouth vitriolic spittle just flys around here.
Post by: Iain on January 30, 2008, 04:10:03 PM
Post by: seeker_two on January 30, 2008, 04:31:36 PM
National Recovery Act. Can we start bashing Teddy Roosevelt now? After all, he did breakup big business monopolies under the Sherman Antitrust law, so I'm sure he was a communist, too.
Don't make me break out my bully pulpit, Riley. I may still write Teddy in for this election....
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2008, 07:16:46 PM
Mention FDR and the kneejerk foaming at the mouth vitriolic spittle just flys around here.
Does anyone else find that just terribly funny, considering the source?
