- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 29, 2010 at 1:14 am #596517
JiggersMemberSo are they saying that smart people watch NBC then?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39403480/ns/local_news-spokane_wa/
September 29, 2010 at 3:18 am #704514
JoBParticipantSeptember 29, 2010 at 1:10 pm #704515
redblackParticipantsupply-side = fail.
September 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm #704516
JoBParticipantperception is everything.
Obama didn’t create this economy but there is a 24/7 campaign to blame the failure of recovery on him and it is working… as that MSNBC poll reflects.
The bad news comes at us in headlines that jiggers so generously shares.
the good news is hidden on the back pages and mentioned in afterthought.
it is so much easier to fall back on slogans than examine evidence…
a fact of advertising that the republicans are counting on this midterm election.
if they can discourage democrats and disillusion independents they can count on the militant ignorant angry to give them back control of congress.
This is why so much big business money is financing the tea party.
That wouldn’t be a good thing since their sole goal for the next two years would be setting up a presidential defeat. If they pass any legislation that allows the economy to recover… Obama will be re-elected.
Electing republicans only guarantees us at least 2 more years of economic stagnation..and that is the best case scenario.
September 29, 2010 at 7:37 pm #704517
dawsonctParticipantRepublican leadership doesn’t care about America or the American people, just power and money.
Conservatives, please point out legislation your Republican heroes have enacted over the last 35 years that have been beneficial to society as a whole. And that certainly excludes their one and only economic policy of giving trillions of our tax dollars to the hyper-wealthy and trans-national corporations in hopes that they will create jobs with it. That doesn’t work, Republicans have been proving that since Reagan.
The latest example of this: “(the Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act) under consideration Tuesday would have ended tax deductions for expenses incurred when companies shutter U.S. operations and shift the work abroad; imposed a new tax on products once made in the United States but now manufactured by foreign workers; and offered employers a two-year payroll tax holiday on jobs repatriated from overseas.”
Their openly stated object from the moment President Obama was elected was to stop every bit of legislation put forth, their greatest fear being that the President would find success improving our lives in some way.
They are ideologically opposed to the good of the American people, and when you vote Republican because of social or economic issues, you are their useful idiot.
How’s that workin’ for ya?
September 29, 2010 at 9:12 pm #704518
JanSParticipantdawsonct…I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you!
September 29, 2010 at 11:10 pm #704519
SmittyParticipantSeptember 30, 2010 at 5:42 am #704520
redblackParticipantsmitty: end ’em both. we don’t need either.
September 30, 2010 at 3:11 pm #704521
JoBParticipantWell put.
if tax cuts produced jobs every American would be employed by now.
the only tax cuts that are effective are those to the middle class who spend them thus creating commerce and helping to save some jobs.
the patriot act certainly hasn’t produced more freedom for Americans… or more security.
In fact it was used to gut FEMA to the great dismay of the city of New Orleans.
smitty has a bridge he wants to sell us…
it’s a good thing we aren’t buying here.
September 30, 2010 at 4:41 pm #704522
SmittyParticipantIt’s been quite awhile since 9/11 and I don’t think the bad guys have stopped trying.
The “inherited” (nice, huh?) national security that W “inherited”(get it?) has been corrected and improved because of the act.
September 30, 2010 at 5:33 pm #704523
JoBParticipantSmitty…
“The “inherited” (nice, huh?) national security that W “inherited”(get it?) has been corrected and improved because of the act.”
LOL.. I am sure you believe that..
but the Bush administration was briefed on Osama Bin Laden and the threat he posed and chose to focus on other security issues.. like how to justify a war with Iraq.
9/11 gave them a way to frame justification.. so they invaded Iraq and made Osama’s point for him… thereby inflaming the rest of the fundamental Islamic world… while managing to pretty much ignore Osama and Afghanistan. Sweet, huh.
Yup. the bad guys are still out there..
including some new enemies we created for ourselves :(
but that doesn’t answer the question of whether security has actually been improved by the patriot act.
did you actually look at what the patriot act dollars were spent on?
You might not want to look too closely at those expenditures…
that warm fuzzy feeling the patriot act gave you could dissipate pretty quickly:(
September 30, 2010 at 5:35 pm #704524
brewParticipantBringing up the Patriot Act and privacy issues….
The Below can and will have hugh implications on private communications….
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: Sep 28, 2010 01:38 Updated: Sep 28, 2010 01:38
WASHINGTON: Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national security officials to eavesdrop on Internet and e-mail communications like social networking websites and BlackBerry phones, The New York Times reported Monday.
The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.
Federal law enforcement and national security officials say new the regulations are needed because terrorists and criminals are increasingly giving up their phones to communicate online.
“We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. “We’re not talking about expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.” The White House plans to submit the proposed legislation to Congress next year.
The new regulations would raise new questions about protecting people’s privacy while balancing national security concerns.
James Dempsey, the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the new regulations would have “huge implications.”
“They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function,” he told the Times.
The Times said the Obama proposal would likely include several requires:
Any service that provides encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them.
Any foreign communications providers that do business in the US would have to have an office in the United States that’s capable of providing intercepts.
Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services would be required to redesign their products to allow interception.
The Times said that some privacy and technology advocates say the regulations would create weaknesses in the technology that hackers could more easily exploit.
September 30, 2010 at 10:09 pm #704525
JoBParticipantain’t this just dandy
October 2, 2010 at 3:31 am #704526
redblackParticipantno, jo, it actually sucks.
“security” is big business, though. and it provides high-paying jobs! :D
D:
i would ask smitty this question, though: where is the big terrorist act that dick cheney predicted if democrats took over homeland security?
do you feel less secure now that the hawai’ian/nigerian socialist overlord is preznit?
October 2, 2010 at 3:34 am #704527
JoBParticipantredblack..
i agree that it sucks.
hubby presents evidence of suckiness every day on facebook from his twitter feed.
some days i would rather just stay under the covers.
like charlabob.. i want to shout from the doorway to the world at large.. how f..ing stupid are you?
i don’t. not because i am nice but because it isn’t effective.
it’s a sanity saver to find a community of thinkers here.
October 2, 2010 at 5:00 am #704528
charlabobParticipantthe big terrorist act will come whenever “they” think the time is right: when it can do the most damage to progressive policies. And I used to mock conspiracy theories :-)
I used to think shouting wasn’t effective — then I started watching the teabag and other right wing rallies and started to wonder.
October 2, 2010 at 5:34 am #704529
redblackParticipantjo and charlabob: despite what the corporate media says, there are still more progressives/liberals than there are teabaggers/conservatives/waterboys-for-the-rich. i think the mid-terms are going to make everyone think twice about what “populism” actually means.
tell others what you know and get three other people to fill out their ballots (no matter their political stripe.)
we’ll be fine.
October 2, 2010 at 5:40 am #704530
redblackParticipantremember this, also, too:
teabaggers aren’t the revolution, they’re the counter-revolution.
and they’re helping the powers-that-be maintain the status quo.
October 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm #704531
JoBParticipantredblack…
it isn’t that i think teabaggers are taking over the world…
it’s that i am overwhelmed with sadness at the success of political advertising on both sides of the aisle…
reacting is NOT the same as acting :(
October 3, 2010 at 3:49 am #704532
SmittyParticipantCurious.
When you guys (folks on the Left) use the term “teabaggers”, do you do so on purpose? Is it kind of a funny inside joke? I realize that technically they may have used it first, but I am pretty sure they go by tea party now.
Is the term a slam on them? If so, why? It sounds homophobic. Thanks.
October 3, 2010 at 3:59 am #704533
charlabobParticipantI, personally, use the term “teabaggers” because it annoys the hell out of them, and out of other right wingers who pretend to be reasonable. I also use the term “repugs” in my mind, whenever I type “R’s” only because there might be some few fence straddlers who will form negative opinions based on a term.
Smitty, I’d have a lot more respect for you (not that that is or should be your goal) if you came right out and said “Is the term a slam on us?” rather than on them. But that’s just me.
The R party has been taken over by the teabaggers — because the teabaggers are nothing more than an arm of corporate America — another ploy to get working class people to vote against their self-interest.
I still haven’t seen any answer to my question about whether the token R’s who post here aren’t just a tiny bit embarassed by the crop of R candidates. I’m pretty sure Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller .. would have been. And I *know* William Weld is.
October 3, 2010 at 3:59 am #704534
CarsonParticipantI call them Tea Baggers because they insult those involved with the original Tea Party. The Tea Party was all about “no taxation without representation”. That has nothing to do with the current Tea Bag movement. Everyone has a vote and representation, you might not like it, but you have the same single vote as everyone else. So yes, its a joke, like the Tea Baggers themselves.
October 3, 2010 at 4:02 am #704535
charlabobParticipantBTW, JoB, I’m not at all dismayed by the ads on my side of the political fence. As Rachel Maddow says, “The Democrats appear to be practicing politics for a change.” Are you surprised? :-)
The ad that most people object to is one in which Alan Grayson calls his opponent a Taliban. His opponent filed a bill in Florida to institute covenant marriage, where the parties could not get divorced unless *one* of them was guilty of infidelity. If they were both guilty, they had to stay together. I’m happy to say the bill didn’t pass — I’m sad to say that he got many cosponsors. Sounds pretty talabanistic to me.
October 3, 2010 at 3:01 pm #704536
SmittyParticipantCarson/Bob,
Appreciate the honest answers. My honest reply is that no, I am not one of them, but I do appreciate how they rankle the Left. I personally think they are pulling a “rope-a-dope” (no pun intended) with O’Donnell. With so much media time focused on her in an attempt to tarnish the entire movement – the rest might actually sneak out a victory.
Carson,
Why is the term considered an “insult”? I have many gay friends (yes, it’s true) and it seems like it would be insulting to them as well, or maybe not. Guess I should just ask.
October 3, 2010 at 3:51 pm #704537
CarsonParticipantWhy is the current Tea Bag movement an insult to the original Tea Party? Go read your history books…I am sure you can figure it out. As for O’Donnell, ha ha ha, that’s one race I am sure of the outcome, I will even bet you 100 shares in your imaginary Fortune 500 Company!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.