Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on September 08, 2008, 10:30:32 AM
-
;D
Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.
Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."
Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.
"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."
Added Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analysts for the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress: "It is somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was sort of no public funding there. Even today they haven't drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury. 'Gotten too big and too expensive' are two separate things. The too big has been a conservative mantra for a while and there is something to be said of that in that they hold about half of the mortgage guarantees that are out there. And in the last year they have been responsible for roughly 80 percent out there. The 'too expensive to tax payers,' I don't know where that comes from."
Even conservative analysts acknowledged that the statement simply did not hold true.
"Heretofore, if the treasury had a balance sheet there would have been a liability but there was never a taxpayer payment before [the bailout]," said Gerald P. O'Driscoll, an economist with the Cato Institute. "[Fannie and Freddie] were not taxpayer funded. They had taxpayer guarantee, which is worth something, especially in the stock market..."
The Palin misstatement comes as Fannie and Freddie are set to be placed under control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, created by President Bush in late July to help regulate the two housing giants. Both presidential candidates have been critical of Fannie and Freddie but neither is opposed to the government's plans for the companies. The treasury is hoping that the government's role will help stabilize credit markets and incentive more mortgage lending.
"With the takeover they will be taxpayer funded," said O'Driscoll. "As I understand it they get to withdraw funds with permission going forward."
How politically significant a "gaffe" it is remains to be seen. The major concern about Palin's position on the ticket is that she lacks the economic and foreign policy wherewithal to serve as vice president. This certainly doesn't help on that front. At the same time, the remark went almost entirely unnoticed over the weekend and discussions on the developments of the housing market can be difficult to process for even the most attuned voter.
There are varying explanations that could be offered for Palin's defense. As O'Driscoll noted, both Fannie and Freddie "were hybrid institutions because they had private ownership but... an implicit government guarantee which people thought at the end of the day was explicit." Meanwhile, as Baker noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer's expense. But, he added, "I kind of doubt she had any sense of that."
-
to the top!
-
I see a pattern here.....
Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig
-
I see a pattern here.....
Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig
No wonder why he isn't posting the source link.
-
as a republican, i'm absolutely shocked at the support for Palin. un-fucking-believable!
Did/does the support for Obama surprise you as well?
-
I see a pattern here.....
Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig - Go to Huffingtonpost.com - post article on Getbig
lol. Truth.
-
ah Neuro, what kind of Republican are u exactly. McCain isn't really a repub or more rightly a conservative, Pallin is much more Conservative and more a tradional republican, so what kind of republican are u?
-
U might get a dem for sec state
-
palin has very little experience. This is a fact.
Rove talked shit about Kaine's experience, which was a lot more than Palin has.
-
palin has very little experience. This is a fact.
Rove talked shit about Kaine's experience, which was a lot more than Palin has.
Obama has NO experience. And he is the top of the Democratic ticket. This is a fact.
Biden? Please. There is a reason why the guy got less than 1% of votes everytime he ran for the Democratic nomination.
-
Obama has NO experience. And he is the top of the Democratic ticket. This is a fact.
Biden? Please. There is a reason why the guy got less than 1% of votes everytime he ran for the Democratic nomination.
I think obama is kicking himself for not choosing hillary, this election would pretty much over if he had.
-
palin has very little experience. This is a fact.
Rove talked shit about Kaine's experience, which was a lot more than Palin has.
Karl Rove ain’t running for president; that is also a fact. So, Rove can talk all he wants.
-
I think obama is kicking himself for not choosing hillary, this election would pretty much over if he had.
This is absoultely true. Same could be said if Hilary won the primaries.
Biden was an awful choice, and completely the type of lifetime Washington insider the Obama campaign was supposed to be against.
I guess we're to believe that correct VP for change was right under their noses in Washington for 35 years? ;D
-
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."
Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.
"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."
-
Biden was an awful choice, and completely the type of lifetime Washington insider the Obama campaign was supposed to be against.
I guess we're to believe that correct VP for change was right under their noses in Washington for 35 years? ;D
Exactly.
-
as a republican, i'm absolutely shocked at the support for Palin. un-fucking-believable!
what is happening to this country and my GOP ?
NT
What happened to your GOP? Well the GOP had a great candidate right in front of them (Ron Paul) but instead decided to laugh at him and ignore him. When will you Republicans learn? Ron Paul is the only candidate that would have really changed the course of this country.
-
i'm a conservative republican, free markets, low taxes, reduced deficts, pro gun, anti abortion unless rape or incest involved. pro stem cell research, strong military (not for preemptive strikes @ 12 Billion per month, based on lies)
i don't hate gays/lesbians or try and change them. all people/races are fine with me as long as their educated and willing to work hard to achieve the "american dream."
i have ALWAYS voted republican, even for the douchebag in the WH. that i regret, and i'm willing to admit i was WRONG in doing so. (unlike many republicans)
HH6, are those positions considered liberal ?
NT
wow, a respectable republican! too bad more of them arent like you. prepare to be flamed by our resident pea-brained neocons now.
-
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."
Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."
"My Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly.
As well as stupidly saying that it was above his pay grade to tell the entire USA when he thinks life begins for an embryo.
Also, not being clear as to what kind of CHANGE he is referring to and HOW exactly is he going to achieve that "change".
-
Biden? Please. There is a reason why the guy got less than 1% of votes everytime he ran for the Democratic nomination.
Biden has a lot of experience though. He and mccain have enough.
Obama has an 'okay' amount - 11 years in senates.
Palin - 20 months as governor... I dunno...
-
LOL @ 11 years in "senates".
If I was trying to get a job as a CEO and put on my application qualifications that I was President of "Companies" because I operated a home telemarketing business and ran my own lemonade stand on the weekends, would that be an accurate and truthful representation indicating my experience?
I am attacking the messanger once again. 240, you are an idiot.
-
LOL @ 11 years in "senates".
If I was trying to get a job as a CEO and put on my application qualifications that I was President of "Companies" because I operated a home telemarketing business and ran my own lemonade stand on the weekends, would that be an accurate and truthful representation indicating my experience?
I am attacking the messanger once again. 240, you are an idiot.
7 years in indiana senate, and 4 years in US senate.
Sure beats 20 months as governor/crazy lady in church.
-
HAHAHA...
she hasn't accidentally slipped up and told the world she is Muslim though.
BARACK FOR CHANGE!!!!
-
HAHAHA...
she hasn't accidentally slipped up and told the world she is Muslim though.
BARACK FOR CHANGE!!!!
contrary to what douchebags keep saying, obama has laid out clearly what he exactly intends to do and how. on the other hand, the republican ticket has yet to mention, even once how they would be any different/better than the last 8 years when their party failed again and again. they have so little direction or understanding of the issues, that instead of discussing things important to american people, they have decided to make their whole platform simply 'Insult Obama'
-
lol. Truth.
Truth would be the fact that short one liners constitute the bulk of your posts in this forum. That getting an actual opinion out of you on anything is like pulling teeth. That many of the shit for brains rightwing dipshits here also do the same thing constantly. That you've all have made it absolutely pointless that one should give a shit about posting material in any hopes that it be discussed with any seriousness. This forum is a big pile of shit thanks to you fucking assclowns.
Here, let me get that eye roll for you *** ::) ***
-
as a republican, i'm absolutely shocked at the support for Palin. un-fucking-believable!
what is happening to this country and my GOP ?
NT
Globalism. :-\
-
Globalism. :-\
There's nothing wrong with globalism, as long as it is reciprocal & sustainable.
The way it has been practiced, and the proposals & strategies put forth and implemented by the GOP have been anything but.
I find it somewhat disengenuous, if not disgusting that Coca~cola would impose a hiring freeze in the USA for the rest of the year, due to 1st & 2nd quarter losses. Normally I could say it's understandable, ...however, they have no problem outsourcing to a French firm Capgemini to take over 150 jobs in Tampa, Florida, 80 jobs in Dallas, Texas, and 70 jobs in Toronto, Canada. Capgemini is expected to handle the work from India or Guatemala. And as icing on the cake they'll be giving away "A Diamond A Day" in Ireland.
Globalized Trade must be fair & sustainable. As it has been practiced by the GOP it isn't, and simply widens the gaps between the rich & the poor. Having exploited other markets as much as they can, ...they are now turning their sights back to the USA and implementing those same tactics that have worked so well in other markets to destroy & prevent the growth of the middle class.
The GOP is looking to market vinyl records in an mp3 digital age, ...and it is the American people that will suffer as a result, as they find themselves increasingly unable to be competitive with the rest of the world.
"Don't think you're on the right road just because it’s a well-beaten path." -- Author Unknown
-
There's nothing wrong with globalism, as long as it is reciprocal & sustainable.
The way it has been practiced, and the proposals & strategies put forth and implemented by the GOP have been anything but.
I find it somewhat disengenuous, if not disgusting that Coca~cola would impose a hiring freeze in the USA for the rest of the year, due to 1st & 2nd quarter losses. Normally I could say it's understandable, ...however, they have no problem outsourcing to a French firm Capgemini to take over 150 jobs in Tampa, Florida, 80 jobs in Dallas, Texas, and 70 jobs in Toronto, Canada. Capgemini is expected to handle the work from India or Guatemala. And as icing on the cake they'll be giving away "A Diamond A Day" in Ireland.
Globalized Trade must be fair & sustainable. As it has been practiced by the GOP it isn't, and simply widens the gaps between the rich & the poor. Having exploited other markets as much as they can, ...they are now turning their sights back to the USA and implementing those same tactics that have worked so well in other markets to destroy & prevent the growth of the middle class.
The GOP is looking to market vinyl records in an mp3 digital age, ...and it is the American people that will suffer as a result, as they find themselves increasingly unable to be competitive with the rest of the world.
"Don't think you're on the right road just because it’s a well-beaten path." -- Author Unknown
I completely boggles me how you're never able to find fault on the part of the Democratic party. :-\
Hello? NAFTA?
I hope you like the idea of Dirty Sanchez living next door to you delivering pizza.
-
Biden has a lot of experience though. He and McCain have enough.
ABM has an 'okay' amount - 11 years in senates.
Plain - 20 months as governor... I dunno...
Dude.
20 months as Governor is more impressive than 11 years in the Senate where all Biden did is say yea or nay. The man was never chief of armed forces. That comes with territory as being governor. Bidden was never responsible for an entire state's economy, infrastructure, education, health program, justifying budgets from the federal government for your state. The list can go on. Palin had all those responsibilities. Biden can choose from time to time partake in making a new legislation, or blocking the republicans from putting out their own legislation or just sitting on his chair in the 49058205820 committees that he is in and doing nothing.
I will take the Palin. Let me ask. What makes her a crazy church lady? HEHEHEH!!! Someone said that was the reason she was selected. Hmmm, maybe it's because she is an intelligent, well spoken, WOMAN, who has more EXECUTIVE experience than either Obama or Biden. That has more to do with her selection than her religious belief. But, keep making it into ONLY a religious issue. If you do, you miss the point entirely.
-
Neuro...great list, I'm with you. I also think Palin is light on experience but she seems to have good character and does support real fiscal conservatism, smaller gov and lower taxes so IMO, its better than the alternative. In a more idealistic election, Romney would be the VP...or better yet the president.
-
Senate experience is good but can be problematic in some cases as well. Senators learn the patterns of big washington lawyer bureaucracy, which does not help to run the country.
Its indisputable that being a gov is better training for the presidency.
-
I completely boggles me how you're never able to find fault on the part of the Democratic party. :-\
Hello? NAFTA?
The democrats didn't invent NAFTA. That little piece of work was ushered in by the Reagan Bush white house, and the Conservative Mulroney cabinet back in the 80's. just because Americans only became aware of it lately doesn't mean it is a Democrat invention. As far as NAFTA goes, I don't have a problem with it in principal, however I believe some of the specifics of the agreement could have been better negotiated for all involved.
I hope you like the idea of Dirty Sanchez living next door to you delivering pizza.
That sounds almost racist on your part?
I suppose in a society that breeds such a wide disparity of social classes, I can see where one could be quite easily tempted to fall into that trap of classifying people using stereotypes. Under a proper NAFTA agreement, ...Sanchez would have plenty of clean water so he'd be able to take a bath and wouldn't be dirty anymore, ...and he'd be able to make a decent liveable income at home, and not have to leave there to move next door to me to deliver pizza
-
7 years in indiana senate, and 4 years in US senate.
Sure beats 20 months as governor/crazy lady in church.
\
Part time......part time......part time.................he's spent 2 of those 4 years running for president. He did nothing in either job. He's really done nothing in DC, nothing.
-
Truth would be the fact that short one liners constitute the bulk of your posts in this forum. That getting an actual opinion out of you on anything is like pulling teeth. That many of the shit for brains rightwing dipshits here also do the same thing constantly. That you've all have made it absolutely pointless that one should give a shit about posting material in any hopes that it be discussed with any seriousness. This forum is a big pile of shit thanks to you fucking assclowns.
Here, let me get that eye roll for you *** ::) ***
Yawn. Gibberish. ::)
-
I will take the Palin. Let me ask. What makes her a crazy church lady? HEHEHEH!!!
20 seconds... Sarah Palin in church speech: "Our National leaders are sending them out on A TASK THAT IS FROM GOD."
-
Yawn. Gibberish. ::)
As opposed to his left wing Ct gibberish...rants about Israel, the war, etc etc.....
-
20 seconds... Sarah Palin in church speech: "Our National leaders are sending them out on A TASK THAT IS FROM GOD."
Oh boy.
At least she's hot.
-
You cannot out fanaticize fanatics! That's like fighting fire with fire!
If you did, firefighter's wouldn't be equipped with hoses. You fight fire with water,
...and you fight fanaticism with reason, logic, and a well thought out strategic plan.
But before you can have a well thought out strategic plan, ...you have to first be able to think.
I believe that neither McCain nor Palin have the ability to do this..
-
As opposed to his left wing Ct gibberish...rants about Israel, the war, etc etc.....
Tell me about it. When liberals create 55+ threads in a couple days on the same subject, he's okay. But God forbid you have a few people right of center chime in.
Edit: RIGHT of center. :)
-
Tell me about it. When liberals create 55+ threads in a couple days on the same subject, he's okay. But God forbid you have a few people left of center chime in.
little slip there? ;)
-
As opposed to his left wing Ct gibberish...rants about Israel, the war, etc etc.....
You're one of the ones I've given as a good example on the right. recently things have really disolved here. I rarely agreed with you but you have been one of the people willing to counter ideas and notions with actual ideas and thinking that adds to a discussion that in turn can be countered. In the past, you've at least, a majority of the time, had the respect to do that. I can't say the same for these other clowns and it is reducing this forum down to nothing more than another owned or stoned forum. The direction is lousy and I'm a bit disapointed you don't agree. Remember when we were all fairly happy with how the forum was going, both right and left? Remember when we would actually discuss an issue even if it did get heated? I've seen thread after thread fall to multiple posts with very little substance. You know I've brought a range of material to this board and been willing to discuss them, so it's not fair to paint me that way and I think you know it.
-
Yes except we see alot less of ur last post and more angry Hugo....I like clear well thought out Hugo....not angry Hugo. i can't debate angry Hugo and it brings my game down. Its really not ur fault, we've been invaded by a minority of dingbats....that bring us all down.
-
And Hugo, we always disagree, sometimes heated but never stupid.
-
Yes except we see alot less of ur last post and more angry Hugo....I like clear well thought out Hugo....not angry Hugo. i can't debate angry Hugo and it brings my game down. Its really not ur fault, we've been invaded by a minority of dingbats....that bring us all down.
I don't have a problem with people getting angry, that's a constant from the start.
It is a bit like dominoes falling. When so many of these posts that are primarily sarcasm without substance happen, one loses their motivation to spend the time with a post that will likely be met with a couple lines of sarcasm and a red herring--so it spreads to all sides... A little while back I noticed it was out of hand and we had lost that thing about the forum that had both the right and left here happy. My attempt to change the worst of the worst in this area failed. I would like it to return back to those days but I don't see it happening and it looks like few give a shit so it is what it is...
-
Yes except we see alot less of ur last post and more angry Hugo....I like clear well thought out Hugo....not angry Hugo. i can't debate angry Hugo and it brings my game down. Its really not ur fault, we've been invaded by a minority of dingbats....that bring us all down.
That's the kind of thing that happens when you turn a blind eye to things that shouldn't be tolerated,
...but you do because it's aimed at people you don't like. It's like releasing cockroaches in your own home.
Once you do, ...you're up a creek, ...as many are now no doubt finding out.
Be The Change You Want To See In The World -- Mahatma Ghandi
-
And Hugo, we always disagree, sometimes heated but never stupid.
We've actually had some good heated debates. There have been some times I got so pissed I went to far, but shit happens sometimes. Nobody right or left is perfect and I've had my fuckups. But I do remember when our discussions actually contained substance. I'm seeing a lot less of that lately.
-
Jag..I don't ever agree with u...but i don't want u to die ina fire either, nor Hugo or Decker etc...Benny Blanco, Calmus and a few other have hope that I'd get IED'd. Thats the difference.
Hugo..been busy lately, unfortunaly no juicy details as the last exercise was pretty damm boring. Thats how I know we've won in Iraq. We have not done an Afghan exercise this year. I might be switching jobs soon, going behind the fence...I'll let u dig around to figure that out but it will have me doing 90 day deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and elswhere.
-
That's the kind of thing that happens when you turn a blind eye to things that shouldn't be tolerated,
...but you do because it's aimed at people you don't like. It's like releasing cockroaches in your own home.
Once you do, ...you're up a creek, ...as many are now no doubt finding out.
Be The Change You Want To See In The World -- Mahatma Ghandi
It's gone to far. If I can't get the people here to call for it along with me, my action on it will be opposed. Certain people seem quite happy with the owned or stoned format. Unless there is some kind of majority call and general concensus, the old days are gone. hello politics...
-
Jag..I don't ever agree with u...but i don't want u to die ina fire either, nor Hugo or Decker etc...Benny Blanco, Calmus and a few other have hope that I'd get IED'd. Thats the difference.
Hugo..been busy lately, unfortunaly no juicy details as the last exercise was pretty damm boring. Thats how I know we've won in Iraq. We have not done an Afghan exercise this year. I might be switching jobs soon, going behind the fence...I'll let u dig around to figure that out but it will have me doing 90 day deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and elswhere.
For the record, the posts I did see like that I deleted. They went to far imo.
-
This election is very heated, we are a microcosm of American society, just look at ur poll. We'll be fine.
I know, and I don't mind but it lowers my game because I want to choke him through the damm computer.
-
The board is fine. There are always heated exchanges, some good discussions, some trolls, some funny people, and a handful of dummies who cannot have exchanges without attacking people. It will always be that way. The board works best when it isn't heavily moderated.
There are new topics every day. Good discussion every day. The Palin hysteria will blow over.
-
The board is fine. There are always heated exchanges, some good discussions, some trolls, some funny people, and a handful of dummies who cannot have exchanges without attacking people. It will always be that way. The board works best when it isn't heavily moderated.
There are new topics every day. Good discussion every day. The Palin hysteria will blow over.
I don't think anyone has ever called for anything here to be heavily moderated. The amount of deleting that goes on here is tiny compared to other forums on getbig. I have actually delt with intentional derailing of threads since the start of the forum. Ask Nordic. I never felt it had to be a rule and I would just address it when it was a problem. The problem over the last few months has gone well past the occasional need to nip it. I don't understand what the big deal is. How hard is it to ask that if you're going to respond to a post, you address what they said in the post? You can still roll your eye, get pissed, be sarcastic. There's nothing wrong with demanding an actual rebuttal be included.
-
Jag..I don't ever agree with u...but i don't want u to die ina fire either, nor Hugo or Decker etc...Benny Blanco, Calmus and a few other have hope that I'd get IED'd. Thats the difference.
There's no difference as far as I can tell. If someone crosses the line into innappropriateness, that's no reason or excuse to go off on EVERYBODY who has a differing political view. I can't stand some of the things you espouse, ...but I've never wished death upon you.
Hugo..been busy lately, unfortunaly no juicy details as the last exercise was pretty damm boring. Thats how I know we've won in Iraq. We have not done an Afghan exercise this year. I might be switching jobs soon, going behind the fence...I'll let u dig around to figure that out but it will have me doing 90 day deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and elswhere.
btw: If it has anything to do with the recent developments, the new technology being employed as per Woodward
...Godspeed. That apparently is the real reason the "surge" is appearing effective, not the surge itself. ;)
-
The board is fine. There are always heated exchanges, some good discussions, some trolls, some funny people, and a handful of dummies who cannot have exchanges without attacking people. It will always be that way. The board works best when it isn't heavily moderated.
There are new topics every day. Good discussion every day. The Palin hysteria will blow over.
this part reminds me of the Republican Convention ;D
-
The democrats didn't invent NAFTA. That little piece of work was ushered in by the Reagan Bush white house, and the Conservative Mulroney cabinet back in the 80's. just because Americans only became aware of it lately doesn't mean it is a Democrat invention. As far as NAFTA goes, I don't have a problem with it in principal, however I believe some of the specifics of the agreement could have been better negotiated for all involved.
Bush Sr. is responsible for NAFTA but Clinton put it into action.
That sounds almost racist on your part?
I suppose in a society that breeds such a wide disparity of social classes, I can see where one could be quite easily tempted to fall into that trap of classifying people using stereotypes. Under a proper NAFTA agreement, ...Sanchez would have plenty of clean water so he'd be able to take a bath and wouldn't be dirty anymore, ...and he'd be able to make a decent liveable income at home, and not have to leave there to move next door to me to deliver pizza
<sigh> Totally over your head. :-\
-
It's gone to far. If I can't get the people here to call for it along with me, my action on it will be opposed. Certain people seem quite happy with the owned or stoned format. Unless there is some kind of majority call and general concensus, the old days are gone. hello politics...
People have been calling for it. I can recall many times where this was done on the board by myself and other posters, but the issue for all intents and purposes was ignored (addressed rather poorly) because the chief instigator was a mod. This activity has gone on unchecked, and the example has now been adopted by others. It's hard to keep a forum on track when one of it's moderators is the chief instigator when it comes to derailing threads and launching off-topic ad hominem attacks, ...then deleting any subsequent discussion.
-
I don't think anyone has ever called for anything here to be heavily moderated. The amount of deleting that goes on here is tiny compared to other forums on getbig. I have actually delt with intentional derailing of threads since the start of the forum. Ask Nordic. I never felt it had to be a rule and I would just address it when it was a problem. The problem over the last few months has gone well past the occasional need to nip it. I don't understand what the big deal is. How hard is it to ask that if you're going to respond to a post, you address what they said in the post? You can still roll your eye, get pissed, be sarcastic. There's nothing wrong with demanding an actual rebuttal be included.
I completely agree threads should not be intentionally derailed. The problem is a strict rule is unenforceable, without turning the place into a heavily moderated board. Threads often morph into something completely unrelated to the topic. That isn't really a bad thing, unless the "new" topic is simply an insult fest. If the topic changes, then start a new thread, or try and get it back on track. The people posting in the thread dictate where the discussion will go, not the person who starts the thread. Nothing wrong with that. I never get bent out of shape when a thread goes off topic.
-
There's no difference as far as I can tell. If someone crosses the line into innappropriateness, that's no reason or excuse to go off on EVERYBODY who has a differing political view. I can't stand some of the things you espouse, ...but I've never wished death upon you.
btw: If it has anything to do with the recent developments, the new technology being employed as per Woodward
...Godspeed. That apparently is the real reason the "surge" is appearing effective, not the surge itself. ;)
My job change will allow me to kick more doors......and getter much cooler training. Thats if it happens. I plan to pick up a copy of his book this week. The surge worked for a ton of reasons.....mostly the Iraqi's sick of living in a dumpster
-
Bush Sr. is responsible for NAFTA but Clinton put it into action.
It was already scheduled to take effect by the time Clinton was elected.
Clinton simply administrated something previously brought about.
<sigh> Totally over your head. :-\
Far better than under my nose. ;)
-
It was already scheduled to take effect by the time Clinton was elected.
Clinton simply administrated something previously brought about.
Far better than under my nose. ;)
Um.... are we still taking about pizza?
-
I completely agree threads should not be intentionally derailed. The problem is a strict rule is unenforceable, without turning the place into a heavily moderated board. Threads often morph into something completely unrelated to the topic. That isn't really a bad thing, unless the "new" topic is simply an insult fest. If the topic changes, then start a new thread, or try and get it back on track. The people posting in the thread dictate where the discussion will go, not the person who starts the thread. Nothing wrong with that. I never get bent out of shape when a thread goes off topic.
threads do morph and I've never made that an issue. I think several people thought I was, but I was not. As someone posts a reply, in their reply that addresses the post, sometimes a point is brought up that has another person come in and address that. That is the nature of how a thread will morph and there's nothing that can be done about that. But where I have issue is the post that in no way whatsoever addresses the post they are replying to. back in the day I would delete and ask that this not be done maybe a few times a month at most. Recently it's happening to fast for me to even think about keeping up with so I tried to make a move to direct the forum away from that--which failed. It's a very simple core need that indeed will seperate this forum from just being another owned or stoned forum. I've kept up with it in the past because it wasn't a huge problem. It's becoming imo a huge problem now. I deleted more of this in the last few months than I have since the forum started. It's real easy to tell when a person has in no way addressed the post they're replying to. and it's even more easy to tell when that post derails to a new point without even addressing the post. The funny thing here is this in no way takes any freedoms away. It's mearly a loose guidline that keeps a level of seriousness along with the fun and antics. I can't fathom what's wrong with doing that and it does indeed benefit everyone. Nobody wants to post on a subject that is important to them only to have it met with nothing but sarcasm and red herring, right or left.
-
threads do morph and I've never made that an issue. I think several people thought I was, but I was not. As someone posts a reply, in their reply that addresses the post, sometimes a point is brought up that has another person come in and address that. That is the nature of how a thread will morph and there's nothing that can be done about that. But where I have issue is the post that in no way whatsoever addresses the post they are replying to. back in the day I would delete and ask that this not be done maybe a few times a month at most. Recently it's happening to fast for me to even think about keeping up with so I tried to make a move to direct the forum away from that--which failed. It's a very simple core need that indeed will seperate this forum from just being another owned or stoned forum. I've kept up with it in the past because it wasn't a huge problem. It's becoming imo a huge problem now. I deleted more of this in the last few months than I have since the forum started. It's real easy to tell when a person has in no way addressed the post they're replying to. and it's even more easy to tell when that post derails to a new point without even addressing the post. The funny thing here is this in no way takes any freedoms away. It's mearly a loose guidline that keeps a level of seriousness along with the fun and antics. I can't fathom what's wrong with doing that and it does indeed benefit everyone. Nobody wants to post on a subject that is important to them only to have it met with nothing but sarcasm and red herring, right or left.
I agree with most of this, but I go back to whether this is really something that can (or should) be enforced. You said yourself you have a hard time keeping up lately. I personally don't want to act like a mother hen. If there is something blatant, I'll remove it, but trying to regulate threads based on whether someone is on-topic is just too problematic IMO.
-
I agree with most of this, but I go back to whether this is really something that can (or should) be enforced. You said yourself you have a hard time keeping up lately. I personally don't want to act like a mother hen. If there is something blatant, I'll remove it, but trying to regulate threads based on whether someone is on-topic is just too problematic IMO.
I was enforcing it very easily until it got out of hand. It's not hard to do unless you can't recognize it when it happens or like to do it yourself. This is why we're at war now. You don't want to see it because you like to partake in doing it. That's fine... We'll play chaos rules. I'm not deleting anything unless it's against Ron's rules for getbig. Jag, you're free, post away on whatever you want. Ron gave you the go in complaints so you have a go here. Just try to relate what you post to politics somehow ;D
-
I was enforcing it very easily until it got out of hand. It's not hard to do unless you can't recognize it when it happens or like to do it yourself. This is why we're at war now. You don't want to see it because you like to partake in doing it. That's fine... We'll play chaos rules. I'm not deleting anything unless it's against Ron's rules for getbig. Jag, you're free, post away on whatever you want. Ron gave you the go in complaints so you have a go here. Just try to relate what you post to politics somehow ;D
Who's at war? How you figure? You're fighting with yourself. lol.
I'll still enforce the board rules when I'm around, including the anti-advertising rules. You can continue to pout. :)
-
Who's at war? How you figure? You're fighting with yourself. lol.
I'll still enforce the board rules when I'm around, including the anti-advertising rules. You can continue to pout. :)
not from me anymore... No rules but Ron's rules. Ron cleared Jag's spam in the complaints forum. If she can relate it to politics, I won't move or delete it. The next step is a full out mod war, which I will be happy to engage in :D
-
not from me anymore... No rules but Ron's rules. Ron cleared Jag's spam in the complaints forum. If she can relate it to politics, I won't move or delete it. The next step is a full out mod war, which I will be happy to engage in :D
Have fun. You won't be at war with me. lol. Maybe Ozmo?
Repeat after me: "this is only a message board." :)
-
. That getting an actual opinion out of you on anything is like pulling teeth. That many of the shit for brains rightwing dipshits here also do the same thing constantly. That you've all have made it absolutely pointless that one should give a shit about posting material in any hopes that it be discussed with any seriousness. This forum is a big pile of shit thanks to you fucking assclowns.
Here, let me get that eye roll for you *** ::) ***
Yet you constantly allow new threads to be started with no commentary that are just copy and pastes of articles from the Huffington Post. These types of posts are worhtless, as are the Obama is a Muslim ones.
-
I was enforcing it very easily until it got out of hand. It's not hard to do unless you can't recognize it when it happens or like to do it yourself. This is why we're at war now. You don't want to see it because you like to partake in doing it. That's fine... We'll play chaos rules. I'm not deleting anything unless it's against Ron's rules for getbig. Jag, you're free, post away on whatever you want. Ron gave you the go in complaints so you have a go here. Just try to relate what you post to politics somehow ;D
Hugo,
I know exactly what you're saying, ...but it was never my intent, nor will it ever be my intent to abuse that.
There were times when people derailed threads by bringing other topics in, that I did feel the need to address.
It's one thing for someone to make stupid false allegations about a candidate, or a subject, ...whether it be the cause of increased terrorism, or escalated pregnancy rates among our teens. It makes no difference to me, however, when someone makes a direct libelous statement about me, I will address it. If my response sounds too much like a sales pitch, the instigator imo has no grounds for complaint. Nor do mods who failed to address the instigation from the start.
That's like McCain making a false statement about Obama, ...then complaining that Obama has addressed the falsehood, and subsequently seen his numbers rise in the polls as a result.
-
Hugo,
I know exactly what you're saying, ...but it was never my intent, nor will it ever be my intent to abuse that.
There were times when people derailed threads by bringing other topics in, that I did feel the need to address.
It's one thing for someone to make stupid false allegations about a candidate, or a subject, ...whether it be the cause of increased terrorism, or escalated pregnancy rates among our teens. It makes no difference to me, however, when someone makes a direct libelous statement about me, I will address it. If my response sounds too much like a sales pitch, the instigator imo has no grounds for complaint. Nor do mods who failed to address the instigation from the start.
That's like McCain making a false statement about Obama, ...then complaining that Obama has addressed the falsehood, and subsequently seen his numbers rise in the polls as a result.
My issue was never with the morphing of topics. As I noted it happens when several points are brought up in even the most legit reply. I'm only after the blatant intentional derailing of topics and that shit has blown out of control. So until there is a call for some order, there will be no order from me beyond Ron's rules for getbig.
-
I think we should all step back and think about what's really important. The positions of the candidates. Bob Barr, for example:
Bob Barr on Abortion
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Bob Barr on Budget & Economy
Earmarks are an outrageous abuse by Congressmen to buy votes. (Apr 2008)
Remove both earmarks and cut the underlying spending. (Apr 2008)
Allow $3 on 1040 form to pay off National Debt. (Sep 2000)
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Civil Rights
Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty. (Jun 2008)
Authored Defense of Marriage Act. (May 2008)
Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism. (May 2008)
The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive. (Apr 2008)
Took post with ACLU based on fundamental common interests. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Sponsored bill for "Privacy Impact Statement" on new rules. (Apr 2002)
Bob Barr on Corporations
Eliminate billions in corporate welfare. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Bob Barr on Crime
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Drugs
Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
No national nannies: leave smokers alone. (Jun 2008)
In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
Bob Barr on Education
Don't let California home schooling ban spread. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Bob Barr on Energy & Oil
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
Bob Barr on Environment
Human beings are more important than mussels. (Dec 2007)
Bob Barr on Families & Children
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Foreign Policy
Neocon aggression opens can of worms: others will do same. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Bob Barr on Free Trade
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
Bob Barr on Government Reform
Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Restrict campaign donations from foreigners or 3rd parties. (May 1999)
Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Gun Control
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Sponsored bill banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jan 2001)
Bob Barr on Health Care
Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)
Bob Barr on Homeland Security
Restore habeas corpus and protect citizens from government. (Apr 2008)
Restore military to defense; commit to non-intervention. (Apr 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Loud Congressional critic of government's abuses of power. (Dec 2003)
Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003)
Matrix system and TIA are privacy-invasive programs. (Dec 2003)
Military tribunals ok, if monitored & defined. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Sponsored bill allowing assassination of terrorist leaders. (Jan 2001)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Immigration
Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill declaring English the US' official language. (Jan 1999)
Bob Barr on Jobs
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Principles & Values
Seeks Ron Paul's supporters based on libertarian message. (Jun 2008)
On ballot in 48 states; working on last two. (Jun 2008)
Libertarian nominee hopes to be on ballot in all 50 states. (May 2008)
McCain is big-government; I am small-government. (May 2008)
Expects votes to come from those who would sit out election. (May 2008)
Rejects "spolier" label; expects to win electoral votes. (May 2008)
Served as US Attorney and as a CIA official. (Apr 2008)
Announces for president: time for principle over complacency. (Apr 2008)
Religious affiliation: Methodist. (Nov 2000)
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Social Security
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Tax Reform
New tax revolt: both reduce and simplify taxes. (Jun 2008)
Lower taxes by dramatically cutting back size of government. (May 2008)
The FairTax replaces the IRS plus payroll taxes. (Apr 2008)
Repeal the 16th amendment & eliminate the income tax. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Reduce the capital gains tax . (Jan 2001)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994)
-
Yet you constantly allow new threads to be started with no commentary that are just copy and pastes of articles from the Huffington Post. These types of posts are worhtless, as are the Obama is a Muslim ones.
I don't care about that one bit. That's not an issue, never was and never should be. People do not bring news items of the day to this forum to post the news. They bring it here to discuss it. There's nothing wrong with that and I encourage everyone to do it. Several people on the right and left do that. I do it. It's not the issue or the problem.
-
Palin's positions aren't all that different from those of candidate Bob Barr.
I think we should all step back and think about what's really important. The positions of the candidates. Bob Barr, for example:
Bob Barr on Abortion
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Bob Barr on Budget & Economy
Earmarks are an outrageous abuse by Congressmen to buy votes. (Apr 2008)
Remove both earmarks and cut the underlying spending. (Apr 2008)
Allow $3 on 1040 form to pay off National Debt. (Sep 2000)
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Civil Rights
Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty. (Jun 2008)
Authored Defense of Marriage Act. (May 2008)
Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism. (May 2008)
The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive. (Apr 2008)
Took post with ACLU based on fundamental common interests. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Sponsored bill for "Privacy Impact Statement" on new rules. (Apr 2002)
Bob Barr on Corporations
Eliminate billions in corporate welfare. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Bob Barr on Crime
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Drugs
Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
No national nannies: leave smokers alone. (Jun 2008)
In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
Bob Barr on Education
Don't let California home schooling ban spread. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Bob Barr on Energy & Oil
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
Bob Barr on Environment
Human beings are more important than mussels. (Dec 2007)
Bob Barr on Families & Children
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Foreign Policy
Neocon aggression opens can of worms: others will do same. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Bob Barr on Free Trade
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
Bob Barr on Government Reform
Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Restrict campaign donations from foreigners or 3rd parties. (May 1999)
Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Gun Control
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Sponsored bill banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jan 2001)
Bob Barr on Health Care
Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)
Bob Barr on Homeland Security
Restore habeas corpus and protect citizens from government. (Apr 2008)
Restore military to defense; commit to non-intervention. (Apr 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Loud Congressional critic of government's abuses of power. (Dec 2003)
Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003)
Matrix system and TIA are privacy-invasive programs. (Dec 2003)
Military tribunals ok, if monitored & defined. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Sponsored bill allowing assassination of terrorist leaders. (Jan 2001)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Immigration
Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill declaring English the US' official language. (Jan 1999)
Bob Barr on Jobs
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Principles & Values
Seeks Ron Paul's supporters based on libertarian message. (Jun 2008)
On ballot in 48 states; working on last two. (Jun 2008)
Libertarian nominee hopes to be on ballot in all 50 states. (May 2008)
McCain is big-government; I am small-government. (May 2008)
Expects votes to come from those who would sit out election. (May 2008)
Rejects "spolier" label; expects to win electoral votes. (May 2008)
Served as US Attorney and as a CIA official. (Apr 2008)
Announces for president: time for principle over complacency. (Apr 2008)
Religious affiliation: Methodist. (Nov 2000)
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Social Security
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994)
Bob Barr on Tax Reform
New tax revolt: both reduce and simplify taxes. (Jun 2008)
Lower taxes by dramatically cutting back size of government. (May 2008)
The FairTax replaces the IRS plus payroll taxes. (Apr 2008)
Repeal the 16th amendment & eliminate the income tax. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Reduce the capital gains tax . (Jan 2001)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994)
-
I don't care about that one bit. That's not an issue, never was and never should be. People do not bring news items of the day to this forum to post the news. They bring it here to discuss it. There's nothing wrong with that and I encourage everyone to do it. Several people on the right and left do that. I do it. It's not the issue or the problem.
If that's what happened it would be fine. But if the original poster posts it with absolutely no commentary or opinion, and responds only to corresponding posts with lols or emoticons, it's worthless.
-
If that's what happened it would be fine. But if the original poster posts it with absolutely no commentary or opinion, and responds only to corresponding posts with lols or emoticons, it's worthless.
are you kidding... I myself have posted a story many times without opinion. Not that I didn't have one. To see what other people's take is and to engage in that. And sometimes it's compelling to say something right away, it just depends. This part is a non issue. You know how many news items BB has brought with just an eye roll for commentary? many... It's what happens after that's of interest. Not people bringing the news to the board. I got no problem with that. If someone doesn nothing but post news items and never engages then that would be odd. I do agree that they should post some substance and not just emoticons.
-
are you kidding... I myself have posted a story many times without opinion. Not that I didn't have one. To see what other people's take is and to engage in that. And sometimes it's compelling to say something right away, it just depends. This part is a non issue. You know how many news items BB has brought with just an eye roll for commentary? many... It's what happens after that's of interest. Not people bringing the news to the board. I got no problem with that. If someone doesn nothing but post news items and never engages then that would be odd. I do agree that they should post some substance and not just emoticons.
Here's where we disagree. BB posting three straight different threads which are just cut and pastes from the Huffington Post is worthless - anybody can go there and read that if they want. It's not done with the interest of stimulating converstation - it's just baiting.
If he were to pick sections and give his opinions on them, that would be a different story.
-
Here's where we disagree. BB posting three straight different threads which are just cut and pastes from the Huffington Post is worthless - anybody can go there and read that if they want. It's not done with the interest of stimulating converstation - it's just baiting.
If he were to pick sections and give his opinions on them, that would be a different story.
cool, but I don't have a problem with it... Countless lengthy discussions have emerged from articles being brought here. Some strike people, some don't. The ones that nobody gives a shit about fall off to page 2 in no time. All I care about it the intentional derailing of threads. Just like what you did here. You attempted to make the issue about something that bugs you in reply to my posts without addressing what bugs me. Which is fine, we're in chaos mode right now and this is why ;D
-
cool, but I don't have a problem with it... Countless lengthy discussions have emerged from articles being brought here. Some strike people, some don't. The ones that nobody gives a shit about fall off to page 2 in no time. All I care about it the intentional derailing of threads. Just like what you did here. You attempted to make the issue about something that bugs you in reply to my posts without addressing what bugs me. Which is fine, we're in chaos mode right now and this is why ;D
I'll admit that I did read your quote and skip the next two pages of dialogue when I did my response. I actually thought I was adding, not derailing. My bad.
-
I'll admit that I did read your quote and skip the next two pages of dialogue when I did my response. I actually thought I was adding, not derailing. My bad.
well I derailed this thread, I was just giving an example of what the problem is.
-
Here's where we disagree. BB posting three straight different threads which are just cut and pastes from the Huffington Post is worthless - anybody can go there and read that if they want. It's not done with the interest of stimulating converstation - it's just baiting.
If he were to pick sections and give his opinions on them, that would be a different story.
haha ;D
I bring commentaries of interest from Huffington and several other sources here all the time. Never bothered anyone before. Who the fuck are you? If you don't like it, too mutherfucking bad, as I will continue to post whatever I choose on this board. Others post news opinionated news stories here every day. If you don't like the Huffington Post, don't read my posts, cry and throw things around your trailer, jerk off, kill yourself...I don't give a shit.
-
haha ;D
I bring commentaries of interest from Huffington and several other sources here all the time. Never bothered anyone before. Who the fuck are you? If you don't like it, too mutherfucking bad, as I will continue to post whatever I choose on this board. Others post news opinionated news stories here every day. If you don't like the Huffington Post, don't read my posts, cry and throw things around your trailer, jerk off, kill yourself...I don't give a shit.
Who said it bothered me?
I noticed three straight threads in the span of five minutes that were direct copies from the Huffington Post and that's why I made my comment. This morning, I saw one from you from the other side of the coin, and realized I jumped the gun. Sorry to get you so upset.
-
Who said it bothered me?
I noticed three straight threads in the span of five minutes that were direct copies from the Huffington Post and that's why I made my comment. This morning, I saw one from you from the other side of the coin, and realized I jumped the gun. Sorry to get you so upset.
Not upset, just didn't appreciate being called out on something I consider trivial (my news sources). I'm a New Yorker, we come with attitude. ;)
Like I said, I'll continue to go to HP as well as the Financial Times, NY Times, Foreign Policy mag, Yahoo, The Economist. and other sources if I find something of interest to share. I really like HP because they often break news stories and they have writers (admittedly left-wing) who you won't find anywhere else.
No harm, no foul brother. :)