On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:13:09 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>BAR wrote:
>> In article <bkmaa81pnt4dvf4e1fgsirvgj5icg3o...@4ax.com>,
>> bkni...@conramp.net says...
>>> Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
>>> balance?
>> Harry Reid is the gate keeper to all legislation, he is the decider now.
> >>>>> Hilarious. If it you don't agree there's always an excuse. It's only
> >>>>> Obama voters being polled...LMAO
> >>>> Well, it naturally polled more Dems as usual.
> >>>> And this is a pretty much PBS poll anyway.
> >>> This was a Pew Research Center poll not funded by any political group.
> >>> What in hell do you know about them that tells you they polled more
> >>> Democrats? Always an excuse, but this one is really lame
> >> Umm, they had a link to their methodology on the poll on the cite. Read
> >> it for yourself.
> >>>> The Dems blame congress, the Repubs blame Obama. Shocking.
> >>> What's shocking is that you can't see a truth through those myopic
> >>> right-wing eyes. This poll wasn't funded by either party.
> >> Who funded the poll means nothing. This poll shows the R's blaming Obama
> >> and the D's blaming the R's. Well DUH! Your myopic left-wing eyes seem
> >> to need glasses. Rose colored of course.
> > That's bullshit Mike. The poll shows that most Americans think that
> > the Republicans will be the ones to screw up if the fiscal cliff isn't
> > handled correctly. Why do you keep avoiding that fact? You're going
> > Bert on me.
> And when you break down this polling along party lines, its pretty
> obvious it's one side blaming the other.
And of course that is the reality of being an elected official, especially a Representative who needs to be reelected every 2 years. They must start raising money the day their last election is over. And they must avoid doing things that might activate a primary challenge.
For Democrats that means NOT even thinking about cutting entitlements. For Republicans that means not even thinking about raising taxes or adding more regulations.
So that is the reality they face. If you were an elected official who wants to be in office more than 2 years, that's what you would face too. You would do what you have to do, and that is usually NOT in the long-term best interest of anyone but yourself.
I really think we had an opportunity with Romney to put a strong manager in charge of our economy. He was uniquely qualified. At age 65, he very likely would have been uninterested in running for reelection at age 70. He is a millionaire and unlikely to care much for anything except the greater good of the American people. So he could have been truly altruistic. And I believe he would have been. He was retired when his family voted 10 to 2 AGAINST him running for President. He voted against! He didn't need the aggravation. His wife was worried that he would work himself to death on this.
As we saw in the campaign Romney was NOT a professional politician nor did he hire the best campaign staff. He wanted to do it with friends, people he trusted. And he got screwed for his trouble when they were completely out-foxed by the Chicago machine behind Obama.
MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> William Clark wrote:
> > In article <aglaqhFi2r...@mid.individual.net>,
> > MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> William Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <28c555a4-a2a5-4a1c-8237-94341d288784@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> > . . .snip, snip . .
> >>>>> You might want to ask the Mitten that question - he was blown out of > >>>>> the
> >>>>> water.
> >>>> Actually Romney lost by fewer than 300k votes in 5 states. And there is
> >>>> very
> >>>> good reason to suspect major voting fraud by democrats. Unless you can
> >>>> explain 50+ precincts in Philadelphia showing 100% votes for Obama, NOT
> >>>> one
> >>>> vote for Romney! And several precincts stupidly reported OVER 100% of
> >>>> their
> >>>> registered voter base had voted for Obama. Wow! Too stupid to avoid
> >>>> reporting that rampant cheating had gone on.
> >>>> Larry
> >>> OF course, you have reliable cites for this nonsense, don't you?
> >>> I thought not.
> >> Actually I think it was 400,000 some votes in four states.
> > No, it's the "rampant cheating" crap I was asking for poof of.
> You're from Ohio. You should be an expert in it.:-)
Well, if you mean Wally Diebold and his crooked electronic voting machines, I suppose so. But I was asking Lllarry tp provide some substance behind his latest deranged rambling.
>>>>>>>>> No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those
>>>>>>>>> aren't issues to who wrote this.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps like the majority of voters the writer of this piece believes
>>>>>>>> the Winner would do a better job in those areas than the Loser.
>>>>>>> We have seen that the "winner" hasn't been able to fix the economy in
>>>>>>> the previous four years and only idiots believe that giving him another
>>>>>>> four years to "drive the economic car" is going to result in anything
>>>>>>> other than a fatal accident.
>>>>>> I doubt "only idiots" believe that, but I know some idiots believe the
>>>>>> other guy could have done better.
>>>>> Enjoy your tax increases.
>>>> Californians just voted to increase taxes to avoid having schools and
>>>> other services cut even more deeply--a fate that was already on the
>>>> books. Seemed like a good idea to me and about 60% of the electorate.
>>> We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. 60% of the
>>> electorate does not seem to get this.
>> Californians decided they didn't want to cut a week or two more off
>> the already shortened K-12 school year, lose even more police and fire
>> personnel, or raise tuition once again on what used to be a
>> tuition-free system for the state funded colleges--the state has
>> traditionally recognized the importance of a well-educated
>> electorate.. Tuition has not only been levied but has climbed up near
>> to the costs at private colleges. All of those cuts were already
>> written into the 2013 budget and heading for enforcement unless that
>> new taxes were approved. Even with the new taxes LA County is
>> stopping holding trials in about a dozen courthouses, which now will
>> only be used for administrative office space for community-linked
>> services.
>Where does all that money go Don? The kids, LOL! Where does Cali rank >nationally for its well-educated electorate?
I doubt I can respond to the lame questions because they are full of
unfounded assumptions. I'll try to point out some facts.
- K12 has fallen almost to the bottom but is beginning to recover.
Advanced and graduate levels, AFAICT, still rank high, so students are
still coming from all over the world to enroll at Cal Tech, Stanford,
UC Berkeley, USC, and the rest of the higher institutions.
- Most of these fiscal and political reforms you seem to be alluding
to were just voted on earlier this month.
- The fiscal and political problems in this are began with Prop. 13
and its fallout, which led to major realignments of how money was
distributed and used in California. K-12 schools had been locally
funded, but much of the funding was transferred to Sacramento to shore
up the state budget. Money was promised to the counties, but it never
arrived in the promised amounts.
- The radical "no taxes no way" politicians, though a minority, had
enough votes to prevent new taxes which, until this month's election,
required a two-thirds majority to pass.
- the tuition-free state funded colleges were forced to start
collection tuition from students. When I was there my costs were
lodging, books, and a few hundred dollars in lab fees. Now tuition is
thousands of dollars a year, and classes have been suspended so many
students have to got more than four years to complete all their
classwork.
Now, if you think this is whining or exaggerating I know I won't
change you mind. But again your ignorance of California is on
display.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>>>>>>>>>> No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those
>>>>>>>>>> aren't issues to who wrote this.
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps like the majority of voters the writer of this piece believes
>>>>>>>>> the Winner would do a better job in those areas than the Loser.
>>>>>>>> We have seen that the "winner" hasn't been able to fix the economy in
>>>>>>>> the previous four years and only idiots believe that giving him another
>>>>>>>> four years to "drive the economic car" is going to result in anything
>>>>>>>> other than a fatal accident.
>>>>>>> I doubt "only idiots" believe that, but I know some idiots believe the
>>>>>>> other guy could have done better.
>>>>>> Enjoy your tax increases.
>>>>> Californians just voted to increase taxes to avoid having schools and
>>>>> other services cut even more deeply--a fate that was already on the
>>>>> books. Seemed like a good idea to me and about 60% of the electorate.
>>>> We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. 60% of the
>>>> electorate does not seem to get this.
>>> Californians decided they didn't want to cut a week or two more off
>>> the already shortened K-12 school year, lose even more police and fire
>>> personnel, or raise tuition once again on what used to be a
>>> tuition-free system for the state funded colleges--the state has
>>> traditionally recognized the importance of a well-educated
>>> electorate.. Tuition has not only been levied but has climbed up near
>>> to the costs at private colleges. All of those cuts were already
>>> written into the 2013 budget and heading for enforcement unless that
>>> new taxes were approved. Even with the new taxes LA County is
>>> stopping holding trials in about a dozen courthouses, which now will
>>> only be used for administrative office space for community-linked
>>> services.
>>Where does all that money go Don? The kids, LOL! Where does Cali rank >>nationally for its well-educated electorate?
My apologies, Mike. If I had realized who I was responding to I would
have used a very different tone. :-) OTOH your questions were
somewhat Bertieish. I should have inferred a smiley, I guess.
>I doubt I can respond to the lame questions because they are full of
>unfounded assumptions. I'll try to point out some facts.
>- K12 has fallen almost to the bottom but is beginning to recover.
>Advanced and graduate levels, AFAICT, still rank high, so students are
>still coming from all over the world to enroll at Cal Tech, Stanford,
>UC Berkeley, USC, and the rest of the higher institutions.
>- Most of these fiscal and political reforms you seem to be alluding
>to were just voted on earlier this month.
>- The fiscal and political problems in this are began with Prop. 13
>and its fallout, which led to major realignments of how money was
>distributed and used in California. K-12 schools had been locally
>funded, but much of the funding was transferred to Sacramento to shore
>up the state budget. Money was promised to the counties, but it never
>arrived in the promised amounts.
>- The radical "no taxes no way" politicians, though a minority, had
>enough votes to prevent new taxes which, until this month's election,
>required a two-thirds majority to pass.
>- the tuition-free state funded colleges were forced to start
>collection tuition from students. When I was there my costs were
>lodging, books, and a few hundred dollars in lab fees. Now tuition is
>thousands of dollars a year, and classes have been suspended so many
>students have to got more than four years to complete all their
>classwork.
>Now, if you think this is whining or exaggerating I know I won't
>change you mind. But again your ignorance of California is on
>display.
> > >>>>> Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
> > >>>>> balance?
> > >>>> Harry Reid is the gate keeper to all legislation, he is the decider now.
> > >>> And the main gridlocker.
> > >> The Senate is the main gridlocker.
> > >Reid is the Senate majority leader.
> > No shit? ....the whole Senate is the blame.....and also the House
> > too.
> Why don't you just blame the Republicans and lose the feint of
> independence and moderation.
And what is sickening is that California is the nation in advance. Whatever happens here happens next in the US. The national congress will eventually have a huge Democrat majority and with a Democrat President they will drive our economy into the ditch as they pander to unions and trial lawyers, etc.
So the prophesy saying no nation can survive long after its citizens learn to vote themselves money from the treasury is about to happen. Beware of what you wish for.
> > > >>>>> Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
> > > >>>>> balance?
> > > >>>> Harry Reid is the gate keeper to all legislation, he is the decider now.
> > > >>> And the main gridlocker.
> > > >> The Senate is the main gridlocker.
> > > >Reid is the Senate majority leader.
> > > No shit? ....the whole Senate is the blame.....and also the House
> > > too.
> > Why don't you just blame the Republicans and lose the feint of
> > independence and moderation.
> And what is sickening is that California is the nation in advance. Whatever happens here happens next in the US. The national congress will eventually have a huge Democrat majority and with a Democrat President they will drive our economy into the ditch as they pander to unions and trial lawyers, etc.
> So the prophesy saying no nation can survive long after its citizens learn to vote themselves money from the treasury is about to happen. Beware of what you wish for.
"I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
In article <f82dd4ce-ce85-4dd5-9bcc-839e0f3cdfa3@googlegroups.com>,
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> > So the prophesy saying no nation can survive long after its citizens learn > > to vote themselves money from the treasury is about to happen. Beware of > > what you wish for.
> "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run."
> -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not the "superior man" you painted him to be...
...right?
-- Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
In article <alangbaker-471751.22332119112...@news.datemas.de>, alangba...@telus.net says...
> > "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men > > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run."
> > -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
> So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not the > "superior man" you painted him to be...
> ...right?
You're an imbecile. That's not what that statement means. Learn reading comprehension you babbling left wing drone.
> In article <alangbaker-471751.22332119112...@news.datemas.de>, > alangba...@telus.net says...
> > > "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior > > > men > > > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not > > > run."
> > > -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
> > So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not the > > "superior man" you painted him to be...
> > ...right?
> You're an imbecile. That's not what that statement means. Learn > reading comprehension you babbling left wing drone.
Really, now? So what... ...in your humble estimation... ...do you say it means?
-- Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
> > > > "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior > > > > men > > > > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not > > > > run."
> > > > -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
> > > So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not the > > > "superior man" you painted him to be...
> > > ...right?
> > You're an imbecile. That's not what that statement means. Learn > > reading comprehension you babbling left wing drone.
> Really, now? So what... ...in your humble estimation... ...do you say it > means?
I got a better question, how does that statement explain Romney was not the superior person Larry thought he was?
> In article <alangbaker-BF8C3A.11514420112...@news.shawcable.net>, > alangba...@telus.net says...
> > > > > "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for > > > > > superior > > > > > men > > > > > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do > > > > > not > > > > > run."
> > > > > -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
> > > > So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not the > > > > "superior man" you painted him to be...
> > > > ...right?
> > > You're an imbecile. That's not what that statement means. Learn > > > reading comprehension you babbling left wing drone.
> > Really, now? So what... ...in your humble estimation... ...do you say it > > means?
> I got a better question, how does that statement explain Romney was not > the superior person Larry thought he was?
Sorry, but you've put it on the table that the statement Larry quoted means something else.
Put up or shut up.
-- Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
> > > > > > "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for
> > > > > > superior
> > > > > > men
> > > > > > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > run."
> > > > > > -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
> > > > > So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not the
> > > > > "superior man" you painted him to be...
> > > > > ...right?
You're an imbecile.
Regardless of the subject, that is ubiquitous, an indisputable fact that everyone agrees with. And every post from you simply verifies it again. Why don't you go away?
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <MPG.2b15d7f4f1e9993f989...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > > > > > "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for
> > > > > > > superior
> > > > > > > men
> > > > > > > if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > run."
> > > > > > > -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
> > > > > > So, from your own "mouth", you've now agreed that Romney was not > > > > > > the
> > > > > > "superior man" you painted him to be...
> > > > > > ...right?
> You're an imbecile.
You posted... ...in apparent agreement... ...with the sentiment that superior men don't run for election.
Ergo, if you believe that, then you must also believe that Romney wasn't a superior man.
> Regardless of the subject, that is ubiquitous, an indisputable fact that > everyone agrees with. And every post from you simply verifies it again. Why > don't you go away?
Why don't you?
:-)
-- Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
In article <MPG.2b174056d27e534c989...@news.easynews.com>,
"Mr. Joe" <Mr...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <c0af1c44-d984-4f99-a541-
> 53f92625a...@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>, alangba...@telus.net says...
> > And now he's not superior again...
> > Do make up whatever it is you're using in place of a mind, won't you?
> Shut up you babbling asshole. All you can argue is semantics which shows > you have jack shit in substance.
No. I'm arguing substance. Larry set the parameters of the argument and I'm pointing out the inherent (do you need help with the bigger words by the way?) contradiction in what he said.
-- Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
