The ..2012.... Political thread
-
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
I agree. Some people just don't want to let an old discussion die down.
-
Tallyho:
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
Yawn.
-
femaleanimal:
Tallyho:
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
Yawn.
So, how are you today?
-
-
she's a self-proclaimed professional in her field who apprised the situation as "questionable" from the outset, so, why didn't she leave right away, as she should have? i believe that is what her training would dictate. i'm not excusing al's behavior at all, but she was the professional in that situation, she was not under the influence, and she had the very clear opportunity to make a better decision under the circumstances.
-
patpatpatti:
she's a self-proclaimed professional in her field who apprised the situation as "questionable" from the outset, so, why didn't she leave right away, as she should have? i believe that is what her training would dictate. i'm not excusing al's behavior at all, but she was the professional in that situation, she was not under the influence, and she had the very clear opportunity to make a better decision under the circumstances.
I think she was saying given Gore's 'dignitary' status (ironic title
) as well as the hotel owner's insistance that he get the 'royal' treatment. She felt compelled to move forward against her better judgement. It's easy for us to sit here and judge. But I'm not the who'll not be able to put food in my kid's mouth if I opted not to perform these 'favors'
-
patpatpatti:
she's a self-proclaimed professional in her field who apprised the situation as "questionable" from the outset, so, why didn't she leave right away, as she should have? i believe that is what her training would dictate. i'm not excusing al's behavior at all, but she was the professional in that situation, she was not under the influence, and she had the very clear opportunity to make a better decision under the circumstances.
I think she's quite believeable. And need I remind you that the massage profession is used widely by honorable people including Sir Paul when he is on tour
It appears that the former V.P. is to be counted among the dishonorable ...
-
beatlechick:
in1964johnlennonwashot:
beatlechick:
in1964johnlennonwashot:
appletart2:
First off the media is hardly leftest. Second these people who are self proclaimed tea partier are nothing more than the extremest Rep.. The Rep moderates who want to get some business done in Washington have become so attacked by these nut jobs, because they want to see more moderate middle thinking. . So they filtrated into the tea party who didn't support bank bailouts but the wing nuts pushed there anti HC reform on them and most didn't even understand what they were angry about. It all a conspiracy in my mind to get there real candidates that those who control our politics want in by offering crazy up for the Tea Party and than that old white guy will start looking mighty good. Have you ever asked yourself. Who really controls the majority of media in the US. What if theire agenda was divide our country. If so there doing a pretty good job of it.
How stereotypical can we be here? Because I am SURE that absolutely every single person who has ever even THOUGHT about attending a tea party is a radical, right-wing nutjob. You should realize that when you start talking like that, people interested in having a serious discussion tune out. As long as we're going to chat about people who get angry over things they don't really know about...let us chat about, oh, EVERYONE. To be honest, it's uninformed voters that choose the President every 4 years. Here's an interesting example of being uninformed- ever watch those videos entitled "How Obama got elected"? Did you know that most of the Obama voters surveyed thought that Republicans were in control of Congress when Bush left office? Really, they should've been pissed at their own party...who still can't get anything done. Classic example at people being angry at something that doesn't exist. Do you really not know who controls a majority of the media in this country? Take a look at the man in the White House and the party in control of Congress....and there you have your answer.
To tell you the truth, there are stupid people on all sides of the coin. That being said, no one I know ever thought like what you'r quoting here. We all looked into what we were voting on, and that is NOT a small majority but a rather large one. Yes, of course not all people care to look at a candidate but look along their party lines. There, however, a lot more that are researching their candidate. Either they like what they see or they don't. I know liberals who would not vote for Obama because they did not like what they saw. I know conservatives that could not stomach what they saw in McCain, ie Sarah Palin, so they did not vote on their candidate. I do not watch videos that are slanted in one way or another. None of them paint a very good picture of the opposing side. Yes, I am a Democrat - a lifelong Democrat but I don't go into the voting booth with blinders on. There are perhaps 1 or 2 people that I know that do but out of a group of 200 people that I know, that's a very low ratio.
I agree with you- stupid people are everywhere we look. They aren't just classified to one belief system or political persuasion. That's what I was trying to convey, apparently I didn't do so very well. Not sure what it is that I "quoted" that you find so hard to believe- can you clarify? Up until this election, most people I knew were uninformed politically. But with this past election....many people I knew were only informed (and even then, just partially) about only one candidate....which is unfortunate. In the past, I've honestly heard people say they were voting for the "cutest" candidate....or the candidate who was behind in the polls....just because they were "losing". And they were serious. Maybe it's just where I live....but sheesh. Talk about wasting a vote. You don't watch any slanted videos? You don't have many to pick from, then.
What I bolded in your statement is the quote I was referring to. No I don't watch slanted videos and feel no need to pick. I'm sick of the rhetoric. We just had primary elections for Governor in my State (California), the worst part of this election was right out of the box the 2 Republican candidates were slinging mud at each other. Not one really showed what THEY were for but what THEIR opponent did that was sooooo wrong. The one that garnered the most Republican votes is the one that spent the most money, and the most time slinging mud at her opponent. The person Meg Whitman is now opposing didn't even have campaign ads but she is already trying to sling mud at him. The Democrat opponent didn't sling any mud at his opponents, neither did they. Weird that we have come to expect dirty campaigns and not the other way around.
Thanks for clarifying.
You're right- it is a shame that mud-slinging seems to be the only way most politicians know how to go about winning an election these days. Unfortunately, it's gonna take a huge uprising of people sick of the BS to get things to turn around.....and I'm not sure if that will ever happen.
-
[quote="femaleanimal"][quote="Tallyho"][quote="femaleanimal"]Good grief. Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean) Yawn. What a well thought out and intelligent response. but I guess "yawn" and "good grief" are alot easier than having to figure out what I said that wasn't true.
-
beatlechick:
femaleanimal:
Tallyho:
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
Yawn.
So, how are you today?
Really? If you're so sick of the discussion being "dragged on," quit lengthening the discussion by responding to Tallyho's posts.
:
-
this conversation has tuned into a bag full of cats with there tails tied together. the election is over move on. We won you lost deal with it. PS I having a cup of tea right now, really tasty spice herb tea, grown I'm sure by some lefty hippie somewhere in Seattle. so we're good for something
-
There should be a separate 'good grief' thread
-
beatlechick:
EADG:
I have to correct you on this point. Earnings are not the same thing as revenues. They are the same thing as net income. BP's earnings were not $240+ billion, they were $20.8 billion, if i'm reading the financial figures presented in oobu24's email correctly.
That appears to have been just one quarter.
Sorry, no.....those are annual (yearly) figures from oobu24.
Glad to see EADG is on the case here.
-
appletart2:
EADG:
I have to correct you on this point. Earnings are not the same thing as revenues. They are the same thing as net income. BP's earnings were not $240+ billion, they were $20.8 billion, if i'm reading the financial figures presented in oobu24's email correctly.
there going to file bankruptcy anyway..after they borrow 50 billion from a US bank..don't want to leave the country without a final... F%$# U.
Didn't know you are a BP insider....you don't know that as an "insider", that providing that type of information is illegal??
In any event, companies don't borrow that amount from just one bank as you indicate. That isn't how banking works.
-
jaipur:
appletart2:
EADG:
I have to correct you on this point. Earnings are not the same thing as revenues. They are the same thing as net income. BP's earnings were not $240+ billion, they were $20.8 billion, if i'm reading the financial figures presented in oobu24's email correctly.
there going to file bankruptcy anyway..after they borrow 50 billion from a US bank..don't want to leave the country without a final... F%$# U.
Didn't know you are a BP insider....you don't know that as an "insider", that providing that type of information is illegal??
In any event, companies don't borrow that amount from just one bank as you indicate. That isn't how banking works.
I wonder if Vegas is placing bets yet on BP future..I'll place my bet on bankruptcy
-
Bankruptcy doesn't mean the company would simply "disappear".
-
rich n:
There should be a separate 'good grief' thread
I nominate you to head that up, Rich!!
-
jaipur:
beatlechick:
EADG:
I have to correct you on this point. Earnings are not the same thing as revenues. They are the same thing as net income. BP's earnings were not $240+ billion, they were $20.8 billion, if i'm reading the financial figures presented in oobu24's email correctly.
That appears to have been just one quarter.
Sorry, no.....those are annual (yearly) figures from oobu24.
Glad to see EADG is on the case here.
Glad to be of some service.
-
I have been a Paul fan since the Beatles debuted in the USA back in 1964. I recently spent approximately $600.00 US for tickets for his upcoming concert in Pittsburgh, but that was just prior to Sir Paul's denigrating remarks regarding President Bush and his refusal to apologize. I wish he had taken a pointer from Elvis Presley when he was asked a political question: "I'm just an entertainer, ma'am". Sir Paul, I have seen you perform three times previously: once in Pittsburgh years ago; once in Cincinnati; and once in Columbus. You were appallingly out of line to criticize President Bush, who carried the weight of the world on his shoulders after 9/11. He did what he believed was right to avenge all the attacks on Americans dating back to the 1980's. There is no way for me to recoup the $600.00 I have spent on the upcoming concert Aug. 16, but it will be the last money I ever spend on Paul cd's, dvd's, or concerts. As an American, I am insulted. And what about the "great guy" President Obama returning the Churchill bust which was a gift from your government, to the UK? Were you not offended by that? Even I was offended.
-
BillyCat1021:
I have been a Paul fan since the Beatles debuted in the USA back in 1964. I recently spent approximately $600.00 US for tickets for his upcoming concert in Pittsburgh, but that was just prior to Sir Paul's denigrating remarks regarding President Bush and his refusal to apologize. I wish he had taken a pointer from Elvis Presley when he was asked a political question: "I'm just an entertainer, ma'am"...
I guess you missed the part where Elvis wanted to join the DEA as a honorary agent? That was under another real winner of a President - Nixon.
BillyCat1021:
...Sir Paul, I have seen you perform three times previously: once in Pittsburgh years ago; once in Cincinnati; and once in Columbus. You were appallingly out of line to criticize President Bush, who carried the weight of the world on his shoulders after 9/11. He did what he believed was right to avenge all the attacks on Americans dating back to the 1980's. There is no way for me to recoup the $600.00 I have spent on the upcoming concert Aug. 16, but it will be the last money I ever spend on Paul cd's, dvd's, or concerts. As an American, I am insulted...
I honestly don't see how anyone from either of the supposed "sides" can defend The Usurper Bush (Bush the Second.) Personally, I refuse to acknowledge him as ever being the Legally Elected President. With the assistance of his brother and the Election Chairman of Florida, he stole the first election, and with the assistance of Diebold he stole the second.
As for the September Attacks, I won't go as far as some do in claiming that The Usurper Bush and Company engineered the attacks. However, I am convinced They knew the attacks were coming, and opted to let them go forward for several reasons important to Them. First, to shore-up Bush's flagging approval rating, (prior to the September Attacks, his approval was in the crapper.) Second, as an excuse to start another un-win-able (but very lucrative for his old Texas buddies) War. And thirdly, as an excuse to gut The Constitution in several key areas. All part of the bigger plan.
BillyCat1021:
...And what about the "great guy" President Obama returning the Churchill bust which was a gift from your government, to the UK? Were you not offended by that? Even I was offended.
BO is no different than Bush the Second, or Bush the First, or Clinton, or Reagan, or any other Politician. Even if it hadn't been Obama, it would have been McSame. That's because, in order to procure the exorbitant amount of money to conduct a successful campaign, ALL Politicians sell their allegiance to those who will become their Corporate Masters. There is no Left and Right in the US; there is no Democrat and Republican. There is only two sides of the same rotten coin. We no longer have a Representative Democracy in this Country; what We have now is an Oligarchical Kleptocracy - in other words, "Rule by a secret gang of thieves."