The One Hundred and Twelfth

[MrsSmeej]

:wow:

Boehner took the gavel as the Speaker of the House.
Republicans in charge? I imagine that I'll grouse.
First on their agenda, after all the swearing in?
Read The Constitution. It's a good way to begin.

Apparently, it never has been read upon the Floor.
Hopefully they'll rediscover what they're all there for.
Let's see if they mumble when they get to Church and State
Or rush through the various Amendments that they hate.

Next up? They'll be trying to repeal the Health Care Law,
(Insisting that the thing contains a Constitutional flaw.)
The One One Two is on the job, so hold on to your hat.
Think they all can get along? I can't imagine that.

Can they be bi-partisan? I don't think that they can.
Far more likely each will try to out Republican
The other guy by playing to the right-wing lunatics,
Doing unto Democrats. But, hey... That's politics.

:oo:

[GNTLGNT]

Politics, by any other name-legal incest...

[Tery]

I think it's cute how they left out the parts of the Constitution that they don't like..... :rolleyes:

[PatInTheHat]

I think it's cute how they left out the parts of the Constitution that they don't like..... :rolleyes:

AD:love:RABLE!

Did ya like the way they read it all piece meal like, like they made this huge symbolic statement that they're all in this together, just for all of us (and what a very sweet gesture it was)?...well you know, except a couple that needed to be at their fund raising parties (ya just can't start taking interest in special orders too soon, that's my motto)...probably just a scheduling error, eh, it happens, especially on ones very first day of representin':wink2:.
Well I for one found it moving, so much so in fact, I was able to finish a book whilst doin' my um, bidness:blush:.

[Terry B]

The Ultimate Photo-Op!

[MrsSmeej]

:sad:

I hope Palin's happy now that someone's gone and shot
A member of the Congress whom the Palinistas fought.
Giffords was the target of the loonies on the right,
Aimed by Sarah Palin, via cross hairs on her site.

"Oh, I didn't mean for this to happen," she has said.
Hateful speech is dandy, until someone ends up dead.
In this case the slain include a judge and nine year old.
Palin's latest Twitter on the shooting leaves me cold.

What exactly did she think that painted targets meant?
Knowing that her website would be read - the message sent
Makes her an accomplice in the current hateful strife.
Meanwhile, Gabby Giffords is still fighting for her life.

Do we know if Palin's site provided motivation?
No... But it's a little late for outraged condemnation.
Make someone a target, then be shocked when they get shot?
Words do lead to actions. Maybe Sarah just forgot.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Hear, hear, Mrs Smeej!

You've excelled yourself.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Spideyman]

Thank you MrsSmeej . Well spoken are your words and true. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all in this time of need. Bless that little girls soul - what changes could she have made, we will never know.

[CorbinKale]

:sad:

I hope Palin's happy now that someone's gone and shot
A member of the Congress whom the Palinistas fought.
Giffords was the target of the loonies on the right,
Aimed by Sarah Palin, via cross hairs on her site.

"Oh, I didn't mean for this to happen," she has said.
Hateful speech is dandy, until someone ends up dead.
In this case the slain include a judge and nine year old.
Palin's latest Twitter on the shooting leaves me cold.

What exactly did she think that painted targets meant?
Knowing that her website would be read - the message sent
Makes her an accomplice in the current hateful strife.
Meanwhile, Gabby Giffords is still fighting for her life.

Do we know if Palin's site provided motivation?
No... But it's a little late for outraged condemnation.
Make someone a target, then be shocked when they get shot?
Words do lead to actions. Maybe Sarah just forgot.

Dancing in the blood of the victims to promote a political ideology is in poor taste.

[JohnDalglish]

Dancing in the blood of the victims to promote a political ideology is in poor taste.

Hi,

And cross-hairs were impeccable?

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

Hi,

And cross-hairs were impeccable?

Long days and pleasant nights

Not at all. Inflammatory speech has been a constant from all political parties throughout history, and in all nations. We don't regulate inflammatory speech, because that would mean regulating ALL speech. While all evidence has not been released, the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut, and nothing indicates that he was a follower of Palin. If that turns out to be true, shall we, instead, blame Obama for saying that we should bring a gun to the fight?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

I think that would be just as ridiculous as what is being said about Palin. Using the deaths to promote a political ideology is in poor taste, no matter which ideology is being promoted. Watch, within the week, the right will be using the deaths to bludgeon the left, and it will still be disgusting.

[Moderator]

Left leaning nut? What I've heard has him ranting about the government being too involved in our lives and that no one reads the Constitution. Since when has that been something left-leaning ideologists have been accused of? On the contrary, liberals are constantly being accused of wanting too much government and violating the Constitution.

But as for it being disgusting, I'll agree with you on that.

[JohnDalglish]

the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut,
Watch, within the week, the right will be using the deaths to bludgeon the left, and it will still be disgusting.

Hi,

A week you say, eh?

It seems to have started already.

As far as I can see, his reading matter consisted of Mein Kampf and the Communist Party manifesto, so he was BOTH a left and right wing nut.

Although I've said before that I think that conceptions of left and right wing are gross and dangerous over simplifications suitable for the 20th century, but the world has moved on.

Ka is not a straight line with left at one end and right at the other.

Ka is a wheel.

Long days and pleasant nights

Pee Ess - And I still think that bullets should cost $5000 each.

[MrsSmeej]

Dancing in the blood of the victims to promote a political ideology is in poor taste.

Sir, I wasn't dancing and I'm sorry if you thought
It was an agenda I pursue, for it is not.
Not unless you mean, of course, that violence never works
And that it is hateful speech that motivates these jerks.

[PatInTheHat]

Dancing in the blood of the victims to promote a political ideology is in poor taste.


Not at all. Inflammatory speech has been a constant from all political parties throughout history, and in all nations. We don't regulate inflammatory speech, because that would mean regulating ALL speech. While all evidence has not been released, the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut, and nothing indicates that he was a follower of Palin. If that turns out to be true, shall we, instead, blame Obama for saying that we should bring a gun to the fight?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

I think that would be just as ridiculous as what is being said about Palin. Using the deaths to promote a political ideology is in poor taste, no matter which ideology is being promoted. Watch, within the week, the right will be using the deaths to bludgeon the left, and it will still be disgusting.

That was a perfect example of dancing on a pinhead.

Palin wants to be an controversial icon spouting all kinds ideological buzz words to sell her product, well than she has to take the good (cha-ching) with the uh, to put it mildly, not so good, especially when it's so well deserved.
She had her chance to be stand up about all this, but instead she had her "Tweet Assistant" twit (oh my word, but I'll leave it), how that bullseye (Palin's own words) could have been just as easily been confused with a symbol on a map legend...she blew her big chance (not a big surprise now is it?), and will continue to so...pathological people like Palin never take responsibility, for anything, even if caught red handed in the cookie jar, unless they can see how they can get more out of it by doing so!
Ya know, it just might be interesting to see if she throws her assistant twit under the bus...plausible deniability, right?

[CorbinKale]

Left leaning nut? What I've heard has him ranting about the government being too involved in our lives and that no one reads the Constitution. Since when has that been something left-leaning ideologists have been accused of? On the contrary, liberals are constantly being accused of wanting too much government and violating the Constitution.

But as for it being disgusting, I'll agree with you on that.

His classmates say he was a liberal. Like I said, it is early and the facts are still coming out. You won't get all of the story if you are watching liberal news sources.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/09/abc-interviews-friend-giffords-shooter-ignores-her-claim-hes-liberal

This is not conclusive evidence, though, just opinion. Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto are not exactly TEA Party indicative. More socialist, or white supremacist. Giffords was Jewish, so maybe he was a Jew-hater? Still waiting on the facts before I form my opinion.

[JohnDalglish]

she blew her big chance (not a big surprise now is it?), and will continue to so...?

Hi,

Probably.

And I'll refrain from commenting that Scary Sarah sux, oh yes, I will!

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

That was a perfect example of dancing on a pinhead.

Palin wants to be an controversial icon spouting all kinds ideological buzz words to sell her product, well than she has to take the good (cha-ching) with the uh, to put it mildly, not so good, especially when it's so well deserved.
She had her chance to be stand up about all this, but instead she had her "Tweet Assistant" twit (oh my word, but I'll leave it), how that bullseye (Palin's own words) could have been just as easily been confused with a symbol on a map legend...she blew her big chance (not a big surprise now is it?), and will continue to so...pathological people like Palin never take responsibility, for anything, even if caught red handed in the cookie jar, unless they can see how they can get more out of it by doing so!
Ya know, it just might be interesting to see if she throws her assistant twit under the bus...plausible deniability, right?

Palin is just another politician. She is going to be just as inflammatory and deflecting as most other politicians. I don't see the point of trying to pin the massacre on her, unless the goal is to suppress freedom of speech. ESPECIALLY, since there is ZERO evidence connecting her to the shooter. If the facts reveal that they are connected, I will concede those facts, but I will not concede that it justifies suppression of free speech. I think Congresswoman Giffords would say the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs

[Moderator]

His classmates say he was a liberal. Like I said, it is early and the facts are still coming out. You won't get all of the story if you are watching liberal news sources.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/09/abc-interviews-friend-giffords-shooter-ignores-her-claim-hes-liberal

This is not conclusive evidence, though, just opinion. Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto are not exactly TEA Party indicative. More socialist, or white supremacist. Giffords was Jewish, so maybe he was a Jew-hater? Still waiting on the facts before I form my opinion.

I'd watched CNN, NBC, and listened to NPR. No idea if CNN is liberal minded as I don't normally watch it but NBC seems to report both sides. What they're reporting has him all over the place. No offense, but instead of going straight for the left leaning nut, you might have taken your own advice about not putting comments that slant to one side.

[Becks19]

My prayers are with Gabrielle Giffords and her family. May her road to recovery be a swift one.

[Moderator]

Palin is just another politician. She is going to be just as inflammatory and deflecting as most other politicians. I don't see the point of trying to pin the massacre on her, unless the goal is to suppress freedom of speech. ESPECIALLY, since there is ZERO evidence connecting her to the shooter. If the facts reveal that they are connected, I will concede those facts, but I will not concede that it justifies suppression of free speech. I think Congresswoman Giffords would say the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs

It's not about pinning the blame on her. This controversy should be about people, and particularly the news media and politicians, taking responsibility that what they say and do can have consequences and that so much of it in the news assaulting us on a daily basis has had a negative effect on our society as a whole. And IMO, the news media is doing just that all over again by trying to deflect what has happened and absolve themselves of any responsibility. They are creating more red herrings to get people upset and instead of having meaningful discussions or trying to reverse the trend, we're feeding right into it all over again. Who's pulling the strings, folks?

[JohnDalglish]

liberal news sources.

Hi,

In a country where ALL news sources are ultimately responsible to share holders via Wall St. how CAN there be any such thing as a genuinely liberal news source?

'Money doesn't talk, it swears,
Obscenity? Who really cares?
Propaganda, all is phoney'.

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

Sir, I wasn't dancing and I'm sorry if you thought
It was an agenda I pursue, for it is not.
Not unless you mean, of course, that violence never works
And that it is hateful speech that motivates these jerks.

You mentioned Palin in every verse, your ideology clear.
You shouted Palin is to blame and everyone should hear.
Your claim that violence never works is something of a reach
As your poem's a case of violence-motivated hateful speech.

[CorbinKale]

I'd watched CNN, NBC, and listened to NPR. No idea if CNN is liberal minded as I don't normally watch it but NBC seems to report both sides. What they're reporting has him all over the place. No offense, but instead of going straight for the left leaning nut, you might have taken your own advice about not putting comments that slant to one side.

I presented several alternative possibilities, NOT just one side. I advocated looking at the facts. No hypocrisy here.

[Moderator]

I presented several alternative possibilities, NOT just one side. I advocated looking at the facts. No hypocrisy here.

Not until after you'd gone the left-leaning nut route. Your first comment was:

"While all evidence has not been released, the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut, ....."

You did give other alternatives but not at the time I responded to your post. I applaud your comments to explore other possibilities for his motives. My first response was a knee-jerk reaction to the use of left-leaning nut, particularly in light of what I'd heard that would not place him in that camp. And hypocrisy was exactly my reason for responding to that particular term as I hoped that if you were aware of that information about what Laughner had said about the government and the Constitution, you might take it into consideration as it directly conflicts what is often generalized about how liberals think.

[CorbinKale]

It's not about pinning the blame on her. This controversy should be about people, and particularly the news media and politicians, taking responsibility that what they say and do can have consequences and that so much of it in the news assaulting us on a daily basis has had a negative effect on our society as a whole. And IMO, the news media is doing just that all over again by trying to deflect what has happened and absolve themselves of any responsibility. They are creating more red herrings to get people upset and instead of having meaningful discussions or trying to reverse the trend, we're feeding right into it all over again. Who's pulling the strings, folks?

I disagree. It should be about taking responsibility for our actions. Meaningful discussions are impossible if we suppress free speech. Who's pulling the strings? To answer that, we have to discover who would benefit by suppressing the free exchange of ideas. Such person(s) would probably not let such a crisis go to waste. No, they would use it as a lever to impose their ideology of suppression. Who could they be?

[CorbinKale]

Not until after you'd gone the left-leaning nut route. Your first comment was:

"While all evidence has not been released, the shooter seems to be a left leaning nut, ....."

You did give other alternatives but not at the time I responded to your post. I applaud your comments to explore other possibilities for his motives. My first response was a knee-jerk reaction to the use of left-leaning nut, particularly in light of what I'd heard that would not place him in that camp. And hypocrisy was exactly my reason for responding to that particular term as I hoped that if you were aware of that information about what Laughner had said about the government and the Constitution, you might take it into consideration as it directly conflicts what is often generalized about how liberals think.


Such is the nature of a moderated message board. :) I do take into consideration his views on the Constitution, and the 'government mind control grammar' interpretaion is not consistent with left OR right. It puts him squarely in the 'nut job' camp.

[Moderator]

Just posted a comment in this thread (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/20420-Long-term-consequences-of-the-Arizona-shooting?p=421760#post421760) that addresses my feelings about that. BIG, HUGE difference between suppressing free speech and being ethically responsible for what is said when exercising that right.

[JohnDalglish]

Who could they be?

Hi,

Well, no media outlet risks offending its advertisers, and I speak from experience.

So 'they' could be whoever holds the purse strings.

Or as we say here 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

Long days and pleasant nights

[PatInTheHat]

Palin is just another politician. She is going to be just as inflammatory and deflecting as most other politicians. I don't see the point of trying to pin the massacre on her, unless the goal is to suppress freedom of speech. ESPECIALLY, since there is ZERO evidence connecting her to the shooter. If the facts reveal that they are connected, I will concede those facts, but I will not concede that it justifies suppression of free speech. I think Congresswoman Giffords would say the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6XMfL3pvs

I'm not "pinning" anything "on" Palin, she has the right to say whatever she wants, and I'll defend her right to do so, as I have the right to exclaim, that I believe she has at least some culpability in promoting an atmosphere, helping cause the death of a nine year old, who was interested in politics because she wanted to help people at that tender young age...period!
Now am I right, well I think so, but then who really cares, but I will say this, I can make a better argument of that, than she can about practically anything that has come out of her mouth since she hit the national stage.
Corbin, you & I "argue", and I know you enjoy it as much as me, but Palin doesn't even "debate", she expounds a philosophic rhetoric, she herself doesn't even comprehend...she's part shock jock, part talkin' monkey, and she's been cashing in slingin' her feces wherever an organ grinder with a tin cup can be found.
This "politician" has never looked at a big picture in her life, unless she was in it, and looking glorious.
She obviously hasn't any problem labeling a fellow snot, who puts out our most secret, basically secret gossip, online, a terrorist, based on what she's been told by bigger thinkers than she's capable, of what might happen (as all this far right rhetoric always is, a warning of what might happen, that is if all of us stupid morons don't listen and be afraid, be very afraid!...yeah well, look at us now), but our Sarah will not say, 'Hey, some folks are really actually dead, this isn't a what if, a what could happen, this is real, so maybe I should do a re-think and just maybe tone down my moneymaker"...oh no, she has her rights, as terrorizing as they are, big or small, intentional or not...talk about the very definition of distasteful!
She isn't "just another politician", she's an inflammatory hateful sideshow with her very own nationally broadcast spotlight, with no real allegiance to anyone other than herself, her bank account, and illusions of pop politico grandeur...in other words, a freak show in the, they ain't no biz like showbiz, parlance...successful at it, oh yes, but a freak show none the less.
Step right up, see little idjit, she walks, she talks smack, she'll snag your thin dime and then ask for a dollar!!!

[CorbinKale]

Just posted a comment in this thread (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/20420-Long-term-consequences-of-the-Arizona-shooting?p=421760#post421760) that addresses my feelings about that. BIG, HUGE difference between suppressing free speech and being ethically responsible for what is said when exercising that right.

I had a quote concerning that same issue. Sometimes the inflammatory speech gets out of control, but I don't think anyone advocating for the suppression free speech realizes that they will be suppressing their OWN speech, too.

http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/19300-The-Real-Story-behind-the-quot-Tea-Party-quot/page14

[Moderator]

Who is advocating for suppressing free speech? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the definition you're assigning to the word. When I hear the word suppress used in that context, what I think of is people not being allowed to speak. Is that what you mean? What I would like to see is the media and politicians speaking in a way in which they are able to get a point across without resorting to personal remarks that are clearly designed to inflame and hit emotional hot buttons. For example, instead of saying the liberals or conservatives (depending upon the situation) are trying to do this or that with proposed legislation, they could instead reference the part of the bill that they object to or support and give the specific reasons for it. It is possible to say, I don't like this because I feel it will add to our debt and hopefully have some data to back up that argument. It really is not necessary to add, and if it's passed the liberals are one step closer to bankrupting our country. The liberals could make their arguments in a similar fashion without making it personal against a conservative viewpoint. I'd be a lot more willing to listen to what they have to say and would appreciate being treated like a grownup who can form opinions based on facts. If I want to inject my emotions in the privacy of my own home, only my partner has to put up with my talking to the television or the computer. :smile2: He's gotten used to my yelling at the TV. :blush:

[JohnDalglish]

He's gotten used to my yelling at the TV. :blush:

Hi,

Soft fluffy pom-poms for throwing at TV much recommended!

Long days and pleasant nights

[Moderator]

:smile2: No TV or computer has been harmed (yet). We do avoid the political pundit shows, though, as it's not only good for the TV but our relationship as we aren't always on the same page when it comes to politics. When we were first dating again a decade or so ago, he was a Bill O'Reilly viewer. I watched with him for a while (quietly) but finally couldn't take it anymore so would just go out of the room to do something else when it was on. When he mentioned it, I told him I didn't want to spend my time watching an arrogant, egotistic, rude a*hole. I don't think he was patronizing me when he agreed with me and stopped watching it, too. :smile2:

[CorbinKale]

Who is advocating for suppressing free speech? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the definition you're assigning to the word. When I hear the word suppress used in that context, what I think of is people not being allowed to speak. Is that what you mean? What I would like to see is the media and politicians speaking in a way in which they are able to get a point across without resorting to personal remarks that are clearly designed to inflame and hit emotional hot buttons. For example, instead of saying the liberals or conservatives (depending upon the situation) are trying to do this or that with proposed legislation, they could instead reference the part of the bill that they object to or support and give the specific reasons for it. It is possible to say, I don't like this because I feel it will add to our debt and hopefully have some data to back up that argument. It really is not necessary to add, and if it's passed the liberals are one step closer to bankrupting our country. The liberals could make their arguments in a similar fashion without making it personal against a conservative viewpoint. I'd be a lot more willing to listen to what they have to say and would appreciate being treated like a grownup who can form opinions based on facts. If I want to inject my emotions in the privacy of my own home, only my partner has to put up with my talking to the television or the computer. :smile2: He's gotten used to my yelling at the TV. :blush:

I misunderstood your message before. Instead of calling for legislation that would prohibit inflammatory speech, you are suggesting that self-censorship is the proper course. I though you were calling for government intervention. My apologies.

[PatInTheHat]

I had a quote concerning that same issue. Sometimes the inflammatory speech gets out of control, but I don't think anyone advocating for the suppression free speech realizes that they will be suppressing their OWN speech, too.

http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/19300-The-Real-Story-behind-the-quot-Tea-Party-quot/page14

And some of the loudest that rail they are afraid of losing they're free speech, are the very ones who would take it away from others in the name of a "patriotism", that they believe they only seem to have.
They're the ones that view the world in stark black & white, with no desire and/or capability, to see any shades of gray.
Phrases such as, "Take Back Our Country", and ironically, one of my true personal favorites that I've always actually liked, "Accept the consequences of your actions", come to mind when identifying many of 'em.
Mighty strange world sometimes idnit?

[Moderator]

Ahhh...I get it. No I was not suggesting more (or reenacting) legislation to regulate this. I would much prefer that people do this on their own.

[Terry B]

I'm not "pinning" anything "on" Palin, she has the right to say whatever she wants, and I'll defend her right to do so, as I have the right to exclaim, that I believe she has at least some culpability in promoting an atmosphere, helping cause the death of a nine year old, who was interested in politics because she wanted to help people at that tender young age...period!
Now am I right, well I think so, but then who really cares, but I will say this, I can make a better argument of that, than she can about practically anything that has come out of her mouth since she hit the national stage.
Corbin, you & I "argue", and I know you enjoy it as much as me, but Palin doesn't even "debate", she expounds a philosophic rhetoric, she herself doesn't even comprehend...she's part shock jock, part talkin' monkey, and she's been cashing in slingin' her feces wherever an organ grinder with a tin cup can be found.
This "politician" has never looked at a big picture in her life, unless she was in it, and looking glorious.
She obviously hasn't any problem labeling a fellow snot, who puts out our most secret, basically secret gossip, online, a terrorist, based on what she's been told by bigger thinkers than she's capable, of what might happen (as all this far right rhetoric always is, a warning of what might happen, that is if all of us stupid morons don't listen and be afraid, be very afraid!...yeah well, look at us now), but our Sarah will not say, 'Hey, some folks are really actually dead, this isn't a what if, a what could happen, this is real, so maybe I should do a re-think and just maybe tone down my moneymaker"...oh no, she has her rights, as terrorizing as they are, big or small, intentional or not...talk about the very definition of distasteful!
She isn't "just another politician", she's an inflammatory hateful sideshow with her very own nationally broadcast spotlight, with no real allegiance to anyone other than herself, her bank account, and illusions of pop politico grandeur...in other words, a freak show in the, they ain't no biz like showbiz, parlance...successful at it, oh yes, but a freak show none the less.
Step right up, see little idjit, she walks, she talks smack, she'll snag your thin dime and then ask for a dollar!!!

My new favorite administration is growing by leaps and bounds. Tery for President. Ms. Mod as VP and PatintheHat as Secretary of State. I'm liking it!

[JohnDalglish]

Step right up, see little idjit, she walks, she talks smack, she'll snag your thin dime and then ask for a dollar!!

Hi,

Ah, but does she crawl on her belly like a reptile?

Long dsays and pleasant nights

[PatInTheHat]

Hi,

Ah, but does she crawl on her belly like a reptile?

Long dsays and pleasant nights

Cost ya double sawbuck, minimum (oh, that's a X X dollar bill:wink2:).

[Spideyman]

Hi,

Ah, but does she crawl on her belly like a reptile?

Long dsays and pleasant nights


Mayhap a reincarnation of "Ermot" ?

[PatInTheHat]

My new favorite administration is growing by leaps and bounds. Tery for President. Ms. Mod as VP and PatintheHat as Secretary of State. I'm liking it!

You just wanna see me in a pastel pants suit don't ya (many have tried):eyebrow:?...good news is, I do gots the legs for that:blush:.

[Tery]

Oh Terry B, if we must serve in any capacity as heads of "state" (and I hope I'm saying what both Ms. Mod and Pat would) we would prefer it to be a fictitious one. Still, shouldn't Uncle Stevie be the President of this "country"? :wink2:

Look, if you have a public forum, a "bully pulpit" or your own TV or radio show, you have a responsibility to keep a rein on your baser instincts. If you are in the public eye, your words might be used to justify anything. The past two years have seen some truly vile speech from leaders of one specific political party, both in the government and on the air. Do these people blithely think that phrases like "don't retreat, reload" or "I want (you) armed and dangerous" or "we will seek second amendment remedies" or "if we don't get our way with ballots we will turn to bullets" are just throw-aways? Do they really think that they are harmless? Because there are always nutjobs who do not understand metaphor, who are not capable of separating political rhetoric from reality. These are the people who act on those dog whistles. And make no mistake, they are indeed dog whistles for the base. And while most of the base just gets all frothy at the mouth, some of them will take it all very seriously. These people in the public eye, who are so careless with their words, now want to wave away any intimation that perhaps some of their rhetoric infected someone on the fringe. And no, there is no equivalency of "right" vs. "left". Anyone with half a brain can recall from which quarter the worst of this invective arose. And instead of dialing it back, toning it down... some are ramping it up. Really?? God/dess help us, they just don't get it.

Here's an interesting theory for you to mull over: Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts. The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do." Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it. Finally, there is no conspiracy here: merely the twisted acts of individuals who are promoting extremism, who get access to national media in which to do it, and the rest follows naturally...

WORDS are powerful. And, if used as a weapon, they have CONSEQUENCES. These people - Palin, Beck, Bachman, Limbaugh and their ilk - love having the audience, the fame and fortune (especially fortune) but, when called to be responsible for what they say they demur and say "How could I know?" Cowards.

This guy, the shooter in Tucson, appears to be all over the map as far as ideology. But he hated the government - that is very clear. He had chosen Rep. Giffords as his target. Who knows why? At this point, we know that his elevator doesn't go to the top floor. We also know that, in Arizona, apparently insane people can easily buy guns and ammunition. That's something that needs to be talked about, too, but we all know where any suggestion that people don't need an assault weapon and 30-shot magazines will go. So let's just leave it at this:

Take responsibility for what you say.

[Tery]

Once again, a cartoon pegs it:

http://i53.tinypic.com/64l81t.jpg

[Moderator]

Now I know the term for what I'd been thinking might be going on about this guy -- stochastic terrorism. It still doesn't answer for me who might be loading the metaphorical gun, but that's a conspiracy theory for another thread. He did make the perfect ploy for that type of outcome and why IMO it is important to exercise freedom of speech responsibly. The outcry against broadcasting that encourages the us against them thinking isn't just about political correctness or "feeling good" as some like to decry and it isn't about suppressing first amendment rights. It's about realizing that manipulating public opinion by tapping into their fears does have consequences, and usually not to the better for the good of society as a whole. IMO

[JohnDalglish]

Cost ya double sawbuck, minimum (oh, that's a X X dollar bill:wink2:).

Hi,

'She wants an eleven dollar bill, I only got ten'.

Long days and pleasant nights

[GNTLGNT]

I usually try to avoid political discussions like the plague-because I'm a firm believer in not getting into a battle of wits as an unarmed man(in this case)...however, gun control or lack thereof is never going to stop randoms acts of insanity and death...guns are always going to be available to the those with evil hearts and rotted minds-the ones who suffer are the truly law abiding...and yes, I'm a gun owner and a concealed carry holder-but I'm not frothing at the mouth or waving the barrel about indiscriminately...I took schooling and have great respect and caution for what comes out of the barrel of any weapon, and I will vigorously defend my right to protect myself and my family-no matter what...

[MrsSmeej]

You mentioned Palin in every verse, your ideology clear.
You shouted Palin is to blame and everyone should hear.
Your claim that violence never works is something of a reach
As your poem's a case of violence-motivated hateful speech.
:sad:

Corbin, we could argue 'til I'm blue about the face
Whether Sarah Palin is or isn't a disgrace.
I suspect we won't agree because we haven't yet
And the more I disagree, the angrier you get.

Free speech, by the Government, should never be curtailed.
But when we resort to threats, then somewhere something's failed.
All the hateful rhetoric's destructive to the State
Coming from the left or right. I don't discriminate.

No, we can't stop crazy but it's sometimes hard to tell
The crazies from the mainstream politicians when they yell.
And, although I've never claimed the left is always right
They do not appear to be the ones who want a fight.

I was hurt to be accused of "dancing" in some blood.
But I'm sorry if my rhyming strikes you as a dud.
I think maybe Ms. Mod's hit the nail upon the head;
How about we both employ civility instead?

:smile2:

[MrsSmeej]

:eyebrow:

Could it be Republican's majority's down two
Congressmen who weren't sworn in with all the other new
Representatives because they were not on the Floor
Taking Oaths of Office which the other Members swore?

These guys skipped the swearing in 'cause they were raising cash,
Schmoozing with their donors and they wouldn't leave the bash -
Even for their swearing in. They watched it on T.V.
Raised their hands and said that they would discharge faithfully

All their tasks and that they'd serve. But, now I'm not so sure
Who they plan on serving. Are their motivations pure?
You may disagree with me (I'm sure that Corbin will)
But I don't think either guy belongs up on the Hill.

[CorbinKale]

:sad:

Corbin, we could argue 'til I'm blue about the face
Whether Sarah Palin is or isn't a disgrace.
I suspect we won't agree because we haven't yet
And the more I disagree, the angrier you get.

Free speech, by the Government, should never be curtailed.
But when we resort to threats, then somewhere something's failed.
All the hateful rhetoric's destructive to the State
Coming from the left or right. I don't discriminate.

No, we can't stop crazy but it's sometimes hard to tell
The crazies from the mainstream politicians when they yell.
And, although I've never claimed the left is always right
They do not appear to be the ones who want a fight.

I was hurt to be accused of "dancing" in some blood.
But I'm sorry if my rhyming strikes you as a dud.
I think maybe Ms. Mod's hit the nail upon the head;
How about we both employ civility instead?

:smile2:

I am completely calm and playing nicely. :) If some nut shoots Palin, will you take responsibility for your inflammatory words? If some nut shoots McCarthy, will it be my fault? Let's keep this in perspective.

Sometimes, because it fits their narrative, people want a story to be true so badly they run with it. Dan Rather got burned the same way. Let's get the facts and investigate the issue before we pass judgement.

[MrsSmeej]

I am completely calm and playing nicely. :) If some nut shoots Palin, will you take responsibility for your inflammatory words? ....
:smile2:

Good. I'm glad you're nice and calm, but there's just one more thing
Could you please point out to me (for no bells does it ring)
Anywhere I've ever said that I wish Palin harm?
I don't use gun metaphors. I view them with alarm.

I am free with my critiques (as you already know)
But I've never threatened anyone on here, and so
I don't think you're being fair equating her with me.
If you do, I think we must agree to disagree.

:oh:

[CorbinKale]

:smile2:

Good. I'm glad you're nice and calm, but there's just one more thing
Could you please point out to me (for no bells does it ring)
Anywhere I've ever said that I wish Palin harm?
I don't use gun metaphors. I view them with alarm.

I am free with my critiques (as you already know)
But I've never threatened anyone on here, and so
I don't think you're being fair equating her with me.
If you do, I think we must agree to disagree.

:oh:

I thought your position was that inflammatory words could incite unstable individuals to violence. For the sake of arguement, one could easily infer that your poem was aimed squarely at Palin. If your theory is correct, some crazy fan of yours could interpret that as the signal to harm her. Only if your theory is correct, of course.

[MrsSmeej]

I thought your position was that inflammatory words could incite unstable individuals to violence. For the sake of arguement, one could easily infer that your poem was aimed squarely at Palin. If your theory is correct, some crazy fan of yours could interpret that as the signal to harm her. Only if your theory is correct, of course.

... And only if one assumed I have any fans, of course. :wink2::grinning:

[CorbinKale]

... And only if one assumed I have any fans, of course. :wink2::grinning:

I'm a fan, and I'm slightly less stable than Pat. :rofl:

[PatInTheHat]

... And only if one assumed I have any fans, of course. :wink2::grinning:

*thumpity*:love:*thumpity*

I got the ol' sausage grinder all clean up and ready to go..who's next?

[MrsSmeej]

*thumpity*:love:*thumpity*
...

:love: The feeling is entirely mutual dear Pat.


I'm a fan, and I'm slightly less stable than Pat. :rofl:

:blush:

You guys are such flatterers, and now you've made me blush.
Next time though, I promise, I won't be in such a rush
To criticize. I'll take a breath and mother's good advice;
Just to not say anything if it's not something nice.

('though I make no promises the breath will always work;
That I won't say something that reveals me as a jerk.
All that I can promise is it won't be my intent
To anger anyone with any future thread content.)

[MrsSmeej]

:grinning:

Three cheers for the Senator who serves the Rockies state.
His idea for seating in the Congress? Pretty great.
When Obama climbs the Hill to give his yearly speech
Udall thinks bi-partisans should practice what they preach.

Mix it up! Republicans sit with the Democrats.
Cheek to jowl it's harder to behave themselves like brats.
No more "reaching 'cross the aisle" but sitting side by side.
That's a sight in which we all could take a lot of pride.

No more one side leaping up while one sits on its hands.
Colorado's Senator has shown he understands;
Make them sit together and - who knows - perhaps they would
Finally work together like good politicians should.

[MrsSmeej]

The Congress - well, Republicans are trying to repeal
The law that was designed to help our health care system heal.
They won't be successful but they do intend to try
Insisting that the law will cause a few more jobs to die.

Bit by bit - dismantle it; that seems to be their plan.
And, although they lack the votes, they're doing what they can
To overturn the Health Care law. They promised that they would.
Which leaves us with the question though of if, in fact, they should?

No, the law's not perfect. Yes, it's full of compromise.
But, to say it's killing jobs is just not true you guys.
The C.B.O. reviewed the thing and, if we take their word,
It lowers costs and cuts our debt. Cash hemorrhaging is cured.

Some jobs go but others stay with more jobs gained than lost.
Hope they keep the baby when the old bath water's tossed.
Frankly, this vote strikes me as a case of sour grapes
Politicians acting like a bunch of jackanapes.

:oh:

[Terry B]

The Congress - well, Republicans are trying to repeal
The law that was designed to help our health care system heal.
They won't be successful but they do intend to try
Insisting that the law will cause a few more jobs to die.

Bit by bit - dismantle it; that seems to be their plan.
And, although they lack the votes, they're doing what they can
To overturn the Health Care law. They promised that they would.
Which leaves us with the question though of if, in fact, they should?

No, the law's not perfect. Yes, it's full of compromise.
But, to say it's killing jobs is just not true you guys.
The C.B.O. reviewed the thing and, if we take their word,
It lowers costs and cuts our debt. Cash hemorrhaging is cured.

Some jobs go but others stay with more jobs gained than lost.
Hope they keep the baby when the old bath water's tossed.
Frankly, this vote strikes me as a case of sour grapes
Politicians acting like a bunch of jackanapes.

:oh:

Well said Mrs.Smeej. I love the use of the word "jackanapes". My question for the right side is a simple one. I bet no one can answer it simply either. Why can't the Republicans offer some constructive criticism and do something to help make the health care plan even better than it is rather than undo everything that's been done? NO ONE has been able to answer that simple question yet and I haven't found anywhere to try to get an answer without my being called an UN-American, non-Christian libitard. Just asking.

[MrsSmeej]

... Why can't the Republicans offer some constructive criticism and do something to help make the health care plan even better than it is rather than undo everything that's been done? ...

Terry B., that's it in one (I'm sorry, there's no prize.)
That's the same objection I've been finding with these guys.
Have they got a better plan ? 'cause they have not yet said.
I'd sure like to see one though, before they move ahead.

Picking at provisions that the people really need
Offering protections from mismanagement and greed.
I would feel much better if their answer weren't a shrug,
If they told us their cure now - before they pull the plug.

:oo:

[CorbinKale]

Well said Mrs.Smeej. I love the use of the word "jackanapes". My question for the right side is a simple one. I bet no one can answer it simply either. Why can't the Republicans offer some constructive criticism and do something to help make the health care plan even better than it is rather than undo everything that's been done? NO ONE has been able to answer that simple question yet and I haven't found anywhere to try to get an answer without my being called an UN-American, non-Christian libitard. Just asking.

If the Federal government had the Constitutional authority to legislate health care, we could legitimately discuss just to what degree our lives will be dictated in that regard. However, until the Constitution is Amended to delegate that power to the Federal government, it remains reserved to the States, as demonstrated by Romneycare. Since Obamacare is unconstitutional from the ground up, I HAVE to oppose it, in accordance with my Oath.

[CorbinKale]

Terry B., that's it in one (I'm sorry, there's no prize.)
That's the same objection I've been finding with these guys.
Have they got a better plan ? 'cause they have not yet said.
I'd sure like to see one though, before they move ahead.

Picking at provisions that the people really need
Offering protections from mismanagement and greed.
I would feel much better if their answer weren't a shrug,
If they told us their cure now - before they pull the plug.

:oo:

Any legislator selling a plan to 'tweak' Obamacare is either ignorant of the Constitution and their Oath, or they are in willful violation of it. The 'cure' for Obamacare is a swift repeal. The States will fix their own health care and compete for business, as will the health insurance industry. Amend the Constitution, delegating the power to legislate health care, then we can talk. Until then, Obamacare is illegal, and I will oppose it on every front.

[MrsSmeej]

It may be a gesture that, in future, won't reflect
The Dawning of Aquarius and mutual respect
But, last night, when Kerry took a seat with John McCain,
It was fitting tribute to the Arizona slain.

Seating may have set the tone for this ambitious speech.
The President gave lofty goals for us to try and reach.
And I think that, on the whole, he tried to keep it fair;
Reaching out to both the sides all intermingled there.

He'd reform the tax code, stop oil subsidies, keep Health;
Electric cars and Tort reform and reinvest our wealth
(When he mentioned that part though, applause was pretty thin.)
"It's a Sputnik moment and the future's ours to win."

He'll freeze all new spending and agrees to compromise.
(Such a stirring vision that The Speaker even cries.)
Wish him luck. He'll need it. 'tis a task that truly daunts.
I'll be shocked if he gets even half of what he wants.

[MrsSmeej]

:eek2:

Congress has 2 problems; they're as big as problems get.
These are unemployment and unprecedented debt.
Democrats want spending to create some brand new jobs.
Republicans say that pays Paul but, meanwhile, Peter robs.

Just the interest on the debt will soon be at a trillion.
Cutting all discretionary spending saves a billion.
Where are we to get the rest when 1 in 10 can't work?
Maybe Keynes was on to something, but debt ceilings lurk.

We need cuts in spending, true. But, where are we to start?
What strands of our safety net do we want torn apart?
We can cut the fruit that's hanging low upon the bough;
P.B.S., the N.E.A. That's 1%... What now?

Our big ticket items are what no-one wants to touch;
Medicare, the Pentagon, age benefits and such.
Since the goose that lays the golden eggs is just a fable,
I'm afraid we've got no choice. It all goes on the table.

:sad:

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Stopping fighting illegal imperialist foreign wars might be a start.

Regime 'change' in Iraq was a lot of bangs for a LOT of bucks, was it not?

Long ddays and pleasant nights

[kingricefan]

Hi,

Stopping fighting illegal imperialist foreign wars might be a start.

Regime 'change' in Iraq was a lot of bangs for a LOT of bucks, was it not?
Long ddays and pleasant nights
Can I get a hallelujah??? Spot on, John. You are so-o right on so-o many levels.

[Moderator]

Hi,

Stopping fighting illegal imperialist foreign wars might be a start.

Regime 'change' in Iraq was a lot of bangs for a LOT of bucks, was it not?

Long ddays and pleasant nights

Yup, just ask Halliburton.

[CorbinKale]

Yup, just ask Halliburton.

Don't you miss the protests with signs about Haliburton, and "Bring our troops home!" Haven't seen those in a couple of years.:eyebrow:

[Moderator]

Not particularly, but my guess is that Halliburton is still making money off it which was the point I was making.

[CorbinKale]

Not particularly, but my guess is that Halliburton is still making money off it which was the point I was making.

The only thing that changed was who signs their checks. :)

[Moderator]

That might be a great place to look to in the budget when fiscal responsibility and trimming the budget is being addressed. Serious question--is that on the tea party agenda?

[JohnDalglish]

The only thing that changed was who signs their checks. :)

Hi,

But not much.

YOU still do!

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose yet again (the more things change the more they remain the same)

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

That might be a great place to look to in the budget when fiscal responsibility and trimming the budget is being addressed. Serious question--is that on the tea party agenda?

Yes. What is in doubt is whether the TEA Party candidates will keep their promises, or turn into Republicans.

[Moderator]

At least on that topic (continuing to fund the war in Afghanistan), I hope they stay true to their promises.

[kingricefan]

Yup, just ask Halliburton.

Don't get me started. Don't even get me started! (I am the founding member of the I Hate Halliburton club)

[Tery]

Hmmm... debt vs. deficit vs. GDP

Here's a fact: the last time the debt was paid was during Andrew Jackson's Administration, when the public debt was paid. The result was that Martin Van Buren, Jackson's successor became a one-term President, following the panic and very serious depression of 1837. A depression caused, in great part, by a shrinking of private demand caused by Government austerity, the successful pay back of the debt, and the continuing policy of balancing the budget. In addition, every sustained attempt in American history to run budget surpluses was followed by either a depression or a recession. A summary of the depressing record is here. (http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/02/10/the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-heres-why-8230/?author=83)

In fact, the reason why any public debt at all exists right now is because Congress mandates that new debt be issued when the Government deficit spends. So, it's Congress that's been forcing the Treasury to manage the debt through the roll over method, and it is Congress's own fault that the United States has any public debt today. (http://www.correntewire.com/national_debt_congresss_fault)

What about the GOP saying that the debt will soon eclipse our whole economy? I suppose that they mean that its size will soon match our annual GDP. But that's a silly comparison, as is the debt-to-GDP ratio derived from that kind of thinking. The GDP is an annual statistic. The debt (roughly) is the accumulation of deficits since Andrew Jackson last paid it off in January of 1835. So the proper comparison, if they wanted to make it, would be the national debt compared to the sum of the annual GDP since 1835. I won't calculate that sum, but clearly the close to $14 Trillion national debt is a very, very small proportion of the GDP since that time.

To tell the truth though, neither the size of the national debt, nor the debt-to-GDP ratio are relevant to the capacity of the Government to spend either in the present, or in the future, because their size has nothing to do with the Constitutional authority of the US Government to issue currency and create money, and also has nothing to do with the solvency of the United States Government.

There is much more to this equation and it's admittedly not easy to slog through. But the GOP hopes that you will feel overwhelmed. That way, they can tell you lies and pat you on the head, then go ahead and help their rich buddies (and themselves) get richer. But do yourself a favor and learn about this:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/07/sector-financial-balances-model-of_26.html

[MrsSmeej]

"Hi,

Stopping fighting illegal imperialist foreign wars"(Plural?) "might be a start.

Regime 'change' in Iraq was a lot of bangs for a LOT of bucks, was it not?

Long days and pleasant nights"

:oh:

John, I hope you know I hold you in highest regard.
Therefore, disagreeing with you's really very hard.
But (although we both agree when speaking of Iraq)
Now we're in Afghanistan there is no turning back.

We cannot just say we'll stay and then go off and leave
Abandoning civilians in the tangled webs we weave.
We have made commitments and, no matter what the cost,
We have got to honor them or else the region's lost.

If we let the Taliban return - if they should win
It's a very ugly mess we'd leave that country in.
We went there and broke it. Now we own it. That's the deal.
We cannot just run away; not while the threat is real.

[JohnDalglish]

:oh:

John, I hope you know I hold you in highest regard.
Therefore, disagreeing with you's really very hard.
But (although we both agree when speaking of Iraq)
Now we're in Afghanistan there is no turning back.

We cannot just say we'll stay and then go off and leave
Abandoning civilians in the tangled webs we weave.
We have made commitments and, no matter what the cost,
We have got to honor them or else the region's lost.

If we let the Taliban return - if they should win
It's a very ugly mess we'd leave that country in.
We went there and broke it. Now we own it. That's the deal.
We cannot just run away; not while the threat is real.

Hi,

True, Mrs Smeej.

But perhaps if America's foreign policy hadn't been so disastrously short sighted a few years ago when Russia was involved in Afghanistan and America armed and trained the Mujhaddin to fight the Russians (the same people as the Taliban after all) it might have been a very different struggle today.

But once again America was too gung-ho to bring down communism as to see al-quaeda hiding under the bed.

For which America and its allies are paying in blood in the deaths and injuries suffered daily by our young people fighting an enemy that Russia, Germany and Britain (quite heavy hitters!) have all failed to subdue in the past and have ALL slunk away with their tales between their legs, a fate that I rather suspect awaits America and its allies this time around.

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

Hmmm... debt vs. deficit vs. GDP

*snip*
There is much more to this equation and it's admittedly not easy to slog through. But the GOP hopes that you will feel overwhelmed. That way, they can tell you lies and pat you on the head, then go ahead and help their rich buddies (and themselves) get richer. But do yourself a favor and learn about this:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/07/sector-financial-balances-model-of_26.html

Great post! What you say about the GOP is true, but you missed one important point. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, but slightly faster. Until we can drop the partisan loyalties, the Democrats and Republicans will keep us locked in this spiral.

[Tery]

Perhaps, Corbin. But the GOP are the ones making the noises about cuts right now. And they currently control the House. So they are the ones I'm more focused on at this time. Believe me, I will attack any Dems who go along with this madness. I'm no fan of Blue Dogs. :glare:

[MrsSmeej]

Republicans in Congress want to squash the E.P.A.
Claiming that the agency should not have had a say
Regarding foul emissions of a green-house causing gas.
Right now it appears as if the bill is going to pass.

There's been talk that congressmen who owe the Brothers Koch
(Who own oil refineries which cause a lot of smoke)
Are the guys who wrote the bill de-regulating air.
Apparently they breathe a different atmosphere up there.

:glare:

[CorbinKale]

Republicans in Congress want to squash the E.P.A.
Claiming that the agency should not have had a say
Regarding foul emissions of a green-house causing gas.
Right now it appears as if the bill is going to pass.

There's been talk that congressmen who owe the Brothers Koch
(Who own oil refineries which cause a lot of smoke)
Are the guys who wrote the bill de-regulating air.
Apparently they breathe a different atmosphere up there.

:glare:

You may be missing the bigger picture here.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

I think we can all agree that we want a cleaner planet. Is the best method towards that end empowering an unelected, unaccountable agency to squash our liberty, not to mention our economy? I don't think so. Rather than ban, regulate and prohibit, the proper course is to lead, educate and encourage.

Besides, Cap and Tax only makes carbon into a commodity. Rather than reducing carbon emmissions, it will INCREASE them, as people NOT producing carbon will sell their credits to those who do. Unintended consequences bites us in the ass again.

I'm not going to hold my breath. Not even if the EPA demands it.

[JohnDalglish]

Rather than ban, regulate and prohibit, the proper course is to lead, educate and encourage.

Hi,

In a perfect world certainly.

But thus far this world has shown few signs of perfection to me.

Greed, self-interest, corruption etc. - yes.

Perfection - no.

(Think of the example of BP's cost-cutting measures to bolster bonuses and stock dividends that led to the severity of the Gulf oil disaster last year - BTW what's happening about that? Has it been swept under the corporate carpet yet?)

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

Hi,

In a perfect world certainly.

But thus far this world has shown few signs of perfection to me.

Greed, self-interest, corruption etc. - yes.

Perfection - no.

(Think of the example of BP's cost-cutting measures to bolster bonuses and stock dividends that led to the severity of the Gulf oil disaster last year - BTW what's happening about that? Has it been swept under the corporate carpet yet?)

Long days and pleasant nights

Of course, the world is not perfect, nor can it ever be. Rather than try to force some ideal of perfection through tyranny, it would be vastly better to promote reason and acheive the desired results by leveraging "Greed, self-interest, corruption etc.", otherwise known as the 'prime motivators'.

The result of the BP spill was another ban. We're saved! :oops:

[PatInTheHat]

I think we can all agree that we want a cleaner planet. Is the best method towards that end empowering an unelected, unaccountable agency to squash our liberty, not to mention our economy? I don't think so. Rather than ban, regulate and prohibit, the proper course is to lead, educate and encourage.

Speaking only from what I know about the EPA (a surprisingly goodly amount as life would have it), and of course my very own fellow homo sapiens (ditto goodly amount, copious I would even dare say, though I readily admit, with a few caveats), yes.
Hey, but that lead, educate, and encourage, now them's some knee slappin' good ones:laugh:!
Hmm, on the other hand, the EPA has caused the biggest (and sooo many more not so big) polluters of MY planet, to encourage the educating of themselves, in leading the effort to pollute even more & more of MY planet...why frown if you can spread it around, would be that particularly profitable business model..and with off shore tax breaks no less:unclesam:!

Personally, growing up when I did, seeing what I've seen, and knowing what I know, I shutter to think what kind of world of sludge, muck and goo, not to mention what kinds of toxic cocktails we'd be living in today, if it wasn't for the EPA...though on the other other hand, I imagine our sunsets might have been spectacular:eek2:.
I know it's hard to believe sometimes, but conservative, actually at one time in a galaxy far far away, did mean conservation & *gasp* conserving..:umm:..yeah I know, wacky idnit:biggrin2:!?

[Tery]

Sure... ban the EPA... next time you take a drink of water why not think for a moment WHY it is safe to drink? Or why the air is fit to breathe? Does anybody remember the days when rivers were on fire, lakes were dead, the air was choking us and acid rain was killing forests? Do you REALLY want to go back to that?

When big business whines about how regulation is killing them they are LYING. All they want to do is increase their profit margin and they don't care what harm they do to that end. So they buy politicians through lobbyists and those politicians do everything they can to prop up their corporate masters and screw everyone else.

These are the cuts the Republicans want to make. Read it over and think about which corporate Master they are catering to with each of them:

· Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M
· Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M
· Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M
· Nuclear Energy -$169M
· Fossil Energy Research -$31M
· Clean Coal Technology -$18M
· Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M
· Energy Information Administration -$34M
· Office of Science under the Energy and water spending bill -$1.1B
· Power Marketing Administrations -$52M
· Department of Treasury -$675M
· Internal Revenue Service -$593M
· Treasury Forfeiture Fund -$338M
· GSA Federal Buildings Fund -$1.7B
· ONDCP -$69M
· International Trade Administration -$93M
· Economic Development Assistance -$16M
· Minority Business Development Agency -$2M
· National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M
· NOAA -$336M
· National Drug Intelligence Center -$11M
· Law Enforcement Wireless Communications -$52M
· US Marshals Service -$10M
· FBI -$74M
· State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance -$256M
· Juvenile Justice -$2.3M
· COPS -$600M
· NASA -$379M
· NSF -$139M
· Legal Services Corporation -$75M
· EPA -$1.6B
· Food Safety and Inspection Services -$53M (FY10)
· Farm Service Agency -$90M
· Agriculture University Research -$246M
· Natural Resource Conservation Service -$60M
· Rural Development Programs -$227M
· WIC -$758M
· International Food Aid grants -$544M
· FDA -$220M
· Land and Water Conservation Fund -$348M
· National Archives and Record Service -$20M
· DOE Loan Guarantee Authority -$1.4B
· EPA ENERGY STAR -$7.4M
· EPA GHG Reporting Registry -$9M
· USGS -$27M
· EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance -$5M
· EPA State and Local Air Quality Management -$25M
· Fish and Wildlife Service -$72M
· Smithsonian -$7.3M
· National Park Service -$51M
· Clean Water State Revolving Fund -$700M
· Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -$250M
· EPA Brownfields -$48M
· Forest Service -$38M
· National Endowment for the Arts -$6M
· National Endowment for the Humanities -$6M
· Job Training Programs -$2B
· Community Health Centers -$1.3B
· Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M
· Family Planning -$327M
· Poison Control Centers -$27M
· CDC -$755M
· NIH -$1B
· Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M
· LIHEAP Contingency fund -$400M
· Community Services Block Grant -$405M
· High Speed Rail -$1B
· FAA Next Gen -$234M
· Amtrak -$224M
· HUD Community Development Fund -$530M
Certainly there are several place where cuts are needed. But read that list up there with a clear eye. You can see that this Congress is not about jobs at all. They are about catering to corporations and their fringe (women's programs cut?) without a thought to any real-world effects. As usual, the GOP (and some Dems - looking at you, Ben Nelson & Claire McCaskill!) is only concerned with their personal pocketbook and their jobs. This budget proposal is draconian.... yet the top 1% gets tax cuts. What. The. Hell? Welcome to Bizzaro America. :glare:

[MrsSmeej]

You may be missing the bigger picture here.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

I think we can all agree that we want a cleaner planet. Is the best method towards that end empowering an unelected, unaccountable agency to squash our liberty, not to mention our economy? I don't think so. Rather than ban, regulate and prohibit, the proper course is to lead, educate and encourage.

Besides, Cap and Tax only makes carbon into a commodity. Rather than reducing carbon emmissions, it will INCREASE them, as people NOT producing carbon will sell their credits to those who do. Unintended consequences bites us in the ass again.

I'm not going to hold my breath. Not even if the EPA demands it.


Of course, the world is not perfect, nor can it ever be. Rather than try to force some ideal of perfection through tyranny, it would be vastly better to promote reason and acheive the desired results by leveraging "Greed, self-interest, corruption etc.", otherwise known as the 'prime motivators'.

The result of the BP spill was another ban. We're saved! :oops:

:oo:

:eyebrow:

Corbin, I've begun to think you argue things with me
Just because I write you rhymes when we two disagree.
In that right-wing blogger's post she says Al Gore's a jerk
Just because he's proving that a Cap and Trade will work.

In the other post above I see that you have stated
People, on the whole, are solely profit motivated.
Cap and Trade creates new industries from cleaner air
Making sure that CO2's sequestered, safe, somewhere.

How then can you argue both those sides against the middle?
It's a start as long as we don't let the Koch boys diddle
With the E.P.A. and all its "pesky" little rules.
They're far too shortsighted. What's the matter with those fools?

:sad:

[MrsSmeej]

:oops:

Congress, at the moment, has an ineffective Speaker;
Boehner from Ohio. (He's the unrepentant leaker -
Weeping at the slightest provocation - but, the guy
Currently has problems that would cause a stone to cry.)

He can't get his members to support him on a bill,
Not without the Tea Party threatening to kill
Any legislation that does not advance their goals.
They aren't into compromise; they're checking out the polls.

(And it seems those polls say that Americans are mad -
Not too sure at who yet... We just feel that things are bad.)
In response the Tea Party, like any frightened herd
Starts to run away with things. Not heed their leaders' word.

So far all that Boehner's done is come off looking weaker
When his members, several times, would not support the Speaker.
Hope that he can rein them in - get out in front and lead them.
Right now though it looks as if, instead, he may stampede them.

:eek2:

[Tery]

It's been almost 2 months. Where are the JOBS!?!?

Instead of jobs they appear to more concerned with abortion and scapegoating Government employees. Not to mention Union busting. Well, we did warn everyone....

[JohnDalglish]

(And it seems those polls say that Americans are mad )


Hi,

And they're not that keen on the Germans either.

(Joking).

Long days and pleasant nights

[MrsSmeej]

It's been almost 2 months. Where are the JOBS!?!?

Instead of jobs they appear to more concerned with abortion and scapegoating Government employees. Not to mention Union busting. Well, we did warn everyone....
The only jobs they've mentioned are the ones they plan to cut;
Thousands lost amongst the varied agencies they'd shut.
Boehner said; "So be it." 'If jobs are lost, they're lost.'
Republicans are cutting jobs that save more than they cost.

Tery, even though you're right and warned us this would come,
I still can't believe the vast majority's so dumb.
Glenn Beck's ratings plummeted and, when push comes to pull
Maybe now they've pushed too far. I see the glass half full.


Hi,

And they're not that keen on the Germans either.

(Joking).

Long days and pleasant nights

:biggrin2:

John, my dearest Scottish friend, I'm sorry but you're wrong;
Germans and Americans play nice and get along.
Of those who don't like us (from the many on the bench)
I suspect that, first in line, would have to be the French.

:biggrin2:

[hossenpepper]

Boehner said; "So be it." 'If jobs are lost, they're lost.'


This has to be the quote of the decade. Just wow.

Going back to the original point of this thread, since when does human speech and making statements not qualify as an "action"?

Take responsibilities for your actions, I like it. :y: That undoubtedly includes things you say. Ask Charlie Manson. It is why he is in prison until he dies.

If I went to a public meeting and started saying things to get a crowd angry and to then riot, I would/could/should be charged with "Inciting a riot". The point is we have laws and other similar situations where what you say is counted as having great weight. <INSERT PUNDIT NAME HERE> should be held to the same standard. Opinions are fine. Saying crap like "2nd Amendment Remedies" and putting clearly gun-related crosshairs on people or their district (which was to imply the person needs to "go") is a clear attempt to incite certain people to become active. saying it wasn't/isn't is about as silly as my 12 year old daughter trying to convince me that her hand "accidentally" punched her brother's arm. I would say that this is a bit of an absurd reduction in comparison, but both examples are just as silly and dumb, frankly.

Off to the burrito bar......

[CorbinKale]

It's been almost 2 months. Where are the JOBS!?!?

Instead of jobs they appear to more concerned with abortion and scapegoating Government employees. Not to mention Union busting. Well, we did warn everyone....

I told you the Republicans would not save us. I do find it entertaining that your statement is exactly what the right-wing extremists said about Obama, two months after he was elected. :) Partisan blinders are nasty things. They can keep us from getting a good view of ourselves, as well as others.

[JohnDalglish]

Partisan blinders are nasty things. They can keep us from getting a good view of ourselves, as well as others.

Hi,

Yes indeed.

I wish people would get rid of these outmoded remnants of 20th century thinking -left wing/right wing, black/white.

This is the third millennia!

And ka is a wheel.

On some topics I'm to the 'left' of Karl Marx while on others I'm somewhat to the 'right' of Attilla the Hun and I suspect that I'm not alone.

Long days and pleasant nights

[MrsSmeej]

:oo:

Shutting down the government did not work great for Newt.
I hope that this Speaker proves himself much more astute.
Yes, he wants to cut one hundred billion dollars out
From the budget, but there's better ways to go about

Cutting back on spending. He will have to compromise;
Not go out and threaten that there'll be a March surprise.
Hardball's not a game I want my Congressmen to play.
Too bad that civility's already D.O.A.

:sad:

[CorbinKale]

:oo:

Shutting down the government did not work great for Newt.
I hope that this Speaker proves himself much more astute.
Yes, he wants to cut one hundred billion dollars out
From the budget, but there's better ways to go about

Cutting back on spending. He will have to compromise;
Not go out and threaten that there'll be a March surprise.
Hardball's not a game I want my Congressmen to play.
Too bad that civility's already D.O.A.

:sad:

It seems like we keep doing the same things, over and over. :) Don't worry too much. I am sure the Republicans will drop the ball, again, and the Democrats will get another run at their imaginary socialist utopia. Ka is a wheel, but partisan ka-ka is a wheel, too!

[PatInTheHat]

It seems like we keep doing the same things, over and over. :) Don't worry too much. I am sure the Republicans will drop the ball, again, and the Democrats will get another run at their imaginary socialist utopia. Ka is a wheel, but partisan ka-ka is a wheel, too!

Nuh uih, droppin' the ball is dem Dems job, it's in the fine tradition of dose ruh row Repub's, to just up and loose sight of it:wink2:...you know, after they've stomped on, ran over, set fire to, and eventually completely destroyed it:laugh:..:oo:but but but, it's for the children:love:.

[guido tkp]

the democrats are, by and large, no more socialists than the republicans are fascist dictators.
i learned that one a long time ago and people need to toss off their own tinted shades of hyper-judgemental eyewear.

they are every bit as patriotic...and love this country every bit as much...and wish for it's succes with every breath and moment of their day.

most of them approach these issues specifically based upon their own religious upbringings/teachings/beliefs, not from mythical socialist propaganda.

the republican are just as much at fault for all the economic woes, as the democrats are, and they all need to get to work doing what needs to be done.

as far as these new, mythical entities having a better lock on economic reality...i have still yet to see any proof within the light and fluffy pudding...no tea partier has yet to come up with any real solution other than slash and burn, and this is clearly not what the american people want.

real solutions will have to include realistic budget cuts and reasonable tax increases, at least until we get out of the whole.

[hossenpepper]

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to a system that makes our currency valuate upon goods and services would be a nice start to actually fixing things. Then some of the right wing theories might work. As long as our economy is driven by credit (fractional reserve system), credit is the only way to fix it (ie spending). But, like a ponzi scheme, it's a boat waiting to sink.

I have wondered for a long time when the government will just say "OK reboot. We aren't paying any of it back, sorry. Now move along, nothing to see here."

Another very interesting factoid I ran across once: if all debts in the U.S. were paid in full, there would be no money!

[CorbinKale]

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to a system that makes our currency valuate upon goods and services would be a nice start to actually fixing things. Then some of the right wing theories might work. As long as our economy is driven by credit (fractional reserve system), credit is the only way to fix it (ie spending). But, like a ponzi scheme, it's a boat waiting to sink.

I have wondered for a long time when the government will just say "OK reboot. We aren't paying any of it back, sorry. Now move along, nothing to see here."

Another very interesting factoid I ran across once: if all debts in the U.S. were paid in full, there would be no money!

Agreed. Looks like they are planning to make it even worse.

http://www.trtam.com/zero-reserve-banking-a-true-license-to-print-money

[Tery]

We did pay the National debt down... once:

The result was that Martin Van Buren, (Andrew) Jackson's successor became a one-term President, following the panic and very serious depression of 1837. A depression caused, in great part, by a shrinking of private demand caused by Government austerity, the successful pay back of the debt, and the continuing policy of balancing the budget. In addition, every sustained attempt in American history to run budget surpluses was followed by either a depression or a recession. A summary of the depressing record is here. (http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/02/10/the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-heres-why-8230/?author=83)

To tell the truth though, neither the size of the national debt, nor the debt-to-GDP ratio are relevant to the capacity of the Government to spend either in the present, or in the future, because their size has nothing to do with the Constitutional authority of the US Government to issue currency and create money, and also has nothing to do with the solvency of the United States Government.

If you'd like to read more:
Paul Ryan's Deficit Reduction Fairy Tales: Part One (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/30/939943/-Paul-Ryans-Deficit-Reduction-Fairy-Tales:-Part-One)

[MrsSmeej]

:oo:

Two more weeks we've gained under continued resolution.
Seems that Kick the Can became the government's solution.
But, if we are serious about the current debt
(Now that we've already torn apart our safety net)

We have got to look at things like taxes and Defense,
Invest in new technologies... Stop straddling the fence.
Use the pot or just get off. Leave room for other butts.
Time for us to share the pain. Repeal the Bush tax cuts.

:glare:

[xkittyx]

Oh gawd don't even get me started on Sarah freakin' Palin!! Now I think I need to go vomit and get the taste of that name out of my mouth... pardon me...

[CorbinKale]

:oo:

Two more weeks we've gained under continued resolution.
Seems that Kick the Can became the government's solution.
But, if we are serious about the current debt
(Now that we've already torn apart our safety net)

We have got to look at things like taxes and Defense,
Invest in new technologies... Stop straddling the fence.
Use the pot or just get off. Leave room for other butts.
Time for us to share the pain. Repeal the Bush tax cuts.

:glare:

With a stroke of the pen(s), Obama made those tax cuts his own. Still blaming Bush is going to be an excellent strategy for 2012! It highlights how little difference there really is between our last two Presidents. Carry on.

[MrsSmeej]

:oo:

Peter King, a Congressman from New York, has convened
Hearings out of fears that we've inadequately screened
Muslims in this country. King believes that most are plotting
Terrorism here that all the rest of us aren't spotting;

That attempts we've made to be "politically correct"
Closed our eyes while we've ignored a group we should suspect.
(Mr. King's the man who, back in 1983
Raised a lot of money through a local agency

Sent it to the IRA who used it bombing bars...
Soldiers and civilians killed. It left unhealing scars.)
That's the guy - the very same - who has the utter nerve
Going after people who've done nothing to deserve

Witch hunts from a pompous ass who's guilty of the thing
He's accusing others of? I think that Peter King
Ought to check his kettle, 'cause it's looking rather black;
Take the plank from his eye before starting his attack.

:glare:

[CorbinKale]

:oo:

Peter King, a Congressman from New York, has convened
Hearings out of fears that we've inadequately screened
Muslims in this country. King believes that most are plotting
Terrorism here that all the rest of us aren't spotting;

That attempts we've made to be "politically correct"
Closed our eyes while we've ignored a group we should suspect.
(Mr. King's the man who, back in 1983
Raised a lot of money through a local agency

Sent it to the IRA who used it bombing bars...
Soldiers and civilians killed. It left unhealing scars.)
That's the guy - the very same - who has the utter nerve
Going after people who've done nothing to deserve

Witch hunts from a pompous ass who's guilty of the thing
He's accusing others of? I think that Peter King
Ought to check his kettle, 'cause it's looking rather black;
Take the plank from his eye before starting his attack.

:glare:

More proof that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats. King's efforts to implement the National ID card is another symptom of his ethni-phobia based usurpations. I would no more carry a National ID, than I would purchase healthcare insurance at gunpoint.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1668-your-papers-please

[MrsSmeej]

I support the funding cuts affecting N.P.R.
Not for reasons you'd suspect. I'll tell you what they are;
I've grown really tired of the tiptoeing around
Going down without a fight, a struggle, or a sound.

Fox News screams out "Bias!" (as if that is not a joke)
Anytime a liberal takes a little verbal poke
At their sacred cows. They all start frothing at the mouth.
P.B.S. caves in. The situation's going south.

Why not call a spade a spade? Admit we think they're dumb?
They've got so much history wrong my brain has frozen - numb.
(Ms.Mod even had to tell me that I'd crossed the line;
Used a word I shouldn't have. I told her that was fine.
:eek2:
Still, I'd use that word again. I thought it well deserved.)
But I think that N.P.R. will be much better served
If they stopped the pussyfooting... Truth to power spoke.
And, of course, it's also true that - currently - we're broke.

It's a shame that stations not supported may not live
They'll need new donations from the folks who don't now give.
The amount we're talking isn't large here anyway;
Give the Teasies this, then ask who else will have to pay.

:glare:

[CorbinKale]

I support the funding cuts affecting N.P.R.
Not for reasons you'd suspect. I'll tell you what they are;
I've grown really tired of the tiptoeing around
Going down without a fight, a struggle, or a sound.

Fox News screams out "Bias!" (as if that is not a joke)
Anytime a liberal takes a little verbal poke
At their sacred cows. They all start frothing at the mouth.
P.B.S. caves in. The situation's going south.

Why not call a spade a spade? Admit we think they're dumb?
They've got so much history wrong my brain has frozen - numb.
(Ms.Mod even had to tell me that I'd crossed the line;
Used a word I shouldn't have. I told her that was fine.
:eek2:
Still, I'd use that word again. I thought it well deserved.)
But I think that N.P.R. will be much better served
If they stopped the pussyfooting... Truth to power spoke.
And, of course, it's also true that - currently - we're broke.

It's a shame that stations not supported may not live
They'll need new donations from the folks who don't now give.
The amount we're talking isn't large here anyway;
Give the Teasies this, then ask who else will have to pay.

:glare:

Just after NPR fired their one black employee, they call the TEA Party racist. :rofl: You can't buy comedy gold like that, even though we still have to pay for it.:eyebrow:

[MrsSmeej]

Just after NPR fired their one black employee, they call the TEA Party racist. :rofl: You can't buy comedy gold like that, even though we still have to pay for it.:eyebrow:

:eyebrow:

Think that Kwame Holman will be shocked that he's not black?
Michele Norris? Ifill? That was not a fair attack.
NPR rolled over on the the guy I think you mean
Due to their perception that his comments may demean

Any other racial group... Politically correct
To the point of silliness, but somehow I suspect
You already knew the facts behind the firing.
Plus, I wouldn't worry for him. FOX was hiring.

:wink2:

[CorbinKale]

:eyebrow:

Think that Kwame Holman will be shocked that he's not black?
Michele Norris? Ifill? That was not a fair attack.
NPR rolled over on the the guy I think you mean
Due to their perception that his comments may demean

Any other racial group... Politically correct
To the point of silliness, but somehow I suspect
You already knew the facts behind the firing.
Plus, I wouldn't worry for him. FOX was hiring.

:wink2:

Your facts are not congruent with my comedy. Please, adjust your facts.:oh:

Well done! :)

[guido tkp]

"with a stroke of the pen..."

hardly...truth & history are very clear, the only way obama could get anyhting done was to cave in (which wa wrong on every level) ...er, compromise, just like on the health care bill...

obama continues to show he is willing to make deals...the (R)'s, and especially those on their teabagged dark side, continue to do anything but

but they, and the damage done, will always be bushes folly

[CorbinKale]

"with a stroke of the pen..."

hardly...truth & history are very clear, the only way obama could get anyhting done was to cave in (which wa wrong on every level) ...er, compromise, just like on the health care bill...

obama continues to show he is willing to make deals...the (R)'s, and especially those on their teabagged dark side, continue to do anything but

but they, and the damage done, will always be bushes folly

Ah, the old truth and history ploy, eh? Obama can do anything, and it is all Bush's fault? Get ready for the surprise!

I agree with you! Obama has embraced everything Bush did, and added more. We were scared that McCain was going to be Bush's third term, but he couldn't have done any better than Obama has, at continuing every single Bush policy.

If you would slip a peek out from under those blinders, you would see more clearly.

[MrsSmeej]

:down:

No - I do not like it but I side with Robert Gates.
Even though Qaddafi is a guy my country hates
We don't have the money or an army with the strength,
And Qaddafi's made it clear he'll go to any length

Crushing revolution. He'll go "house to house" he's said;
Making sure that every single protester is dead.
Still, the Congress stood and cheered when the United Nations
Voted to protect the current rebel held locations.

Comforting as they may sound "No Fly Zones" can't do squat;
Lessons that you'd think our recent history had taught.
Yes, I know that countries in the region asked us to
And that France and Britain take the lead in what to do.

Even though Obama's said we won't be sending troops
I fear our involvement arms Al Queda splinter groups;
Fodder for the charges all we care about is oil...
Couldn't give a damn about less wealthy, sandy soil.

If I thought that air strikes there would work then I'd be thrilled.
But, Qaddafi's statements on the future leave me chilled.
And, no matter what we do, you know we'll have to pay;
People there don't trust us now, no matter what we say.

I agree Qaddafi should be overthrown, it's true...
Let the Saudis take the lead: Kuwait and Bahrain too.
(Noticed that we'll cut the funds for women, children, schools
But, propose a cool, new war and step back - Congress drools?)

:eyebrow:

[exzel]

Libya...
The Barack Ad Hoc.

[MrsSmeej]

:dunno:

Congress howled for action when, at first, a revolution
Rocked the shores of Libya; demanding a solution.
When Obama acted in alliance with the world
Suddenly the tenor of the accusations hurled

Changed from those of cowardice to overstepping bounds.
Yes, of course I know just how suspicious this all sounds,
Still, I think Republicans (and yes, some Democrats)
Have decided one thing they agree upon and that's;

Almost anything he does, Obama's done it wrong.
Don't know who we're fighting for; can't say for how long,
But it's hard to argue that Qaddafi's not insane
Or that he has not attacked us time and time again...

I've begun to waver in withholding my support.
If we keep it in the air and our involvement short,
If it keeps the Syrians from going to extremes
This could work out better than the Congress even dreams.

[MrsSmeej]

:eek2:

Brinkmanship upon the Hill... No budget compromise.
Boehner's having trouble reining in Tea Party guys.
They'd prefer to shut the whole thing down to save a buck.
Need a check or benefit? You might be out of luck.

And, that's not to mention what they want for 2012.
With Ms.Mod's vacation I do not have time to delve
In too deep to details, but from what I've seen I'd say
Looks like it's the Seniors who they plan on making pay.

I must give them credit for a radical approach,
And I'm sure their motivations are above reproach.
But, attacking Medicare when G.E. paid no taxes
Makes me wish for some reforms before they trim with axes.

:glare:

[Moderator]

That's exactly it, MrsSmeej. That the budget needs to be trimmed is of no doubt but do they really think we don't have other areas that could be cut first? Is it REALLY about making the government fiscally responsible or is this just another smokescreen to try to cut programs that they don't like because they don't fit their other views.

[MrsSmeej]

:oo:

Here we go again... They're playing Chicken on the Hill.
Hope to see a compromise - Don't know that we will.
We must raise the ceiling on our debt or face default.
Teasies say no way; we've got no money in the vault.

Efforts to cut trillions from our budget have been stalled.
Democrats made sacrifices; G.O.P. stonewalled.
Yes, we need austerity but spread the pain around.
Why grind all our poorest citizens into the ground?

Taxes aren't a dirty word; they're how the bills get paid.
Why not ask for help from those with fortunes safely made?
Heck, just close the loopholes; that's a couple billion there.
Ask the Wall Street bankers we bailed out to do their share.

G.O.P. has got to move - and not by walking out.
Can't solve any problems if you're only gonna pout.
I think Boehner's problem is he can't control his gang
But he better get in gear or we're all gonna hang.

:eek2:

[CorbinKale]

:oo:

Here we go again... They're playing Chicken on the Hill.
Hope to see a compromise - Don't know that we will.
We must raise the ceiling on our debt or face default.
Teasies say no way; we've got no money in the vault.

Have no fear, the debt ceiling will be raised, regardless of any compromises. Since there is a constant tax revenue stream, there is only one way we default, and that is if we choose not to pay the debt. Defaulting on the debt has nothing to do with the debt ceiling beyond being a Democrat scare tactic. Apparently, it's working.

[MrsSmeej]

:oh:

I have heard the President and Speaker have a plan;
Overhaul the tax code. I don't envy either man.
As the August deadline looms it seems a lot to do.
Problems weren't big enough? Step back - they just grew.

:oo:

...

Count your blessings people; I am going to the beach.
You won't have to listen to my anti-Congress speech.
I will not be writing rhymes about the spending cuts.
I'll be drinking margaritas while the nation shuts.

:grinning:

[MrsSmeej]

:sad:

Politics has gotten ugly lately, I'm afraid.
Bickering and slandering and accusations made.
President Obama's under pressure to perform.
Don't see how he can without Congressional reform.

Just today they'll take a vote that he's already lost.
Tea Party adherents claim we can't afford the cost.
Never mind the fact that our economy is stalled.
The response from Congress? The Republicans stonewalled.

Democrats aren't all on-board... They'll nit and then they'll pick.
Atmosphere is toxic and it's made the country sick.
I am so disgusted with them all. I'm not alone.
Their approval rating is the lowest ever known.

No more will I tippy toe around it; they've been bought.
Money plays a larger part in Congress then it ought.
Saying it's philosophy will just excuse so much.
Clearly all our Representatives are out of touch.

Do the People's Business damn it! That's why you're all there.
Work it out, for goodness sake and try to keep it fair.
Spare the philosophical debates and get to work.
(And someone put a muzzle on McConnell. He's a jerk.)

:glare:

[PatInTheHat]

(And someone put a muzzle on McConnell. He's a jerk.) [/I]

:glare:

I be tryin', but it'd be lyin'
if I didn't say, to
13721
is a well greased $##$!

[ghost19]

“However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” George Washington

I've always liked that one, never more true than it is these days...

[Tery]

I'm with you, Mrs. Smeej. With VERY few exceptions, I'm sick of all of the crooks in the Congress. :glare:

[themadone06]

I'm with you, Mrs. Smeej. With VERY few exceptions, I'm sick of all of the crooks in the Congress. :glare:

Gotta be sick of your crooks too? Am I right? I'd say both sides need to own up to their crap.

[Tery]

I said ALL the crooks in Congress, didn't I? Of course there are "Dems" or DINOs who I would like to see unemployed. Charlie Rangel, Ben Nelson, any Dem who voted for that stupid misogynistic bill yesterday. In fact, there are only a few Dems I really want to keep. I'd be happy clearing the whole damned place out. ANYone in Congress who is more worried about their corporate donors and lobbyists than the people who sent them there to do the business of Congress should be drummed out of the Capitol building. :mad2:

[PatInTheHat]

I said ALL the crooks in Congress, didn't I? Of course there are "Dems" or DINOs who I would like to see unemployed. Charlie Rangel, Ben Nelson, any Dem who voted for that stupid misogynistic bill yesterday. In fact, there are only a few Dems I really want to keep. I'd be happy clearing the whole damned place out. ANYone in Congress who is more worried about their corporate donors and lobbyists than the people who sent them there to do the business of Congress should be drummed out of the Capitol building. :mad2:

I'm so very sorry Tery, I could only make the Thank You button work once:down:.
But on the plus side, that's way more often than most blind ideologists seem to be capable of gettin' it, so there is that:biggrin2:.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

'Politics should be the only capital crime'.
(Plato - c 500 BCE)

'Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose'
('The more everything changes the more it remains the same')
(Rene Descartes - c1630 AD)

Plato

Rene Descartes

Long days and pleasant nights

[Tery]

Aw, Pat, that's more than enough. :smile2:

[MrsSmeej]

:grinning:

Anybody see the speech Obama gave last night?
I thought it was very good; concessions Left and Right.
He said that our Union's in a state but growing strong;
Made another plea that Congress try to get along.

Call me pessimistic but, from what I understand,
Grand Old Party leaders and their candidates had panned
Everything Obama said before he even spoke...
Leading me to wonder if the system might be broke.

I don't mean financially - there's cash up the wazoo -
But there's no transparency on who's supporting who.
We have got to get control of Congress. Rein them in.
Make them work together now or no-one's gonna win.

There must be some issues where the 2 sides can agree.
President Obama said he'll sign them, so we'll see
If, in an election year, Republicans will let
Democrats have any wins. I doubt it. Wanna bet?

:eek2:
ummm... Is $10,000.00 the minimum bet for Republicans?

[Tery]

I wouldn't take that bet. The Republicans are transparent and blatant about their one and only mission; to allow the country to fail so that they can pin it on President Obama. That's all they care about. I don't understand how anyone could possibly re-elect any of these traitors. Yes, traitors. They put Party and ideology above the country.

There is an old Anglo-Saxon word that fits them perfectly - warlock. Yeah, I know what most of you think that means but you're the victim of years of misinformation. What it means is "oath breaker." And that is what these jerks are; they swore an oath when they took office. And they have broken it. I, for one, hope that they are punished accordingly.

[MrsSmeej]

:eek2:

Tery, we'd have lost our bet and, frankly dear, I'm shocked.
Judged by past performances I swore we had this locked.
Heard that Federal payroll tax cuts will now be extended.
Don't get any hopes up though... The fighting hasn't ended.

How about another bet? For nothing or for double.
Wager you that, from now on, the President's in trouble.
Budget's a non-starter. Bet you nothing else will pass.
Not if Mitch McConnell gets his way - the horse's ass.

:oops:

[Tery]

The fight is surely not over. Apparently John of Orange didn't get permission from the Tea Partyers and Mitchie McTurtle and they are pretty POd at him. But we're not hearing a lot about the details... This article is pretty in-depth about that:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065005/-Few-details-emerge-on-House-and-Senate-negotiations-on-payroll-tax-cut-?showAll=yes&via=blog_1

I'm with you, there will be a huge brouhaha over the budget. :glare:

[clownshooter]

I should know better than to stick my big phat nose (it's not really fat :biggrin2:) into a politics thread. These type of threads are rife with double standards which I find sad. I'm sure many of us here could meet at a coffee shoppe somewhere and have a lively (and yes, maybe heated) political debate and yet leave as friends silently considering points made by those with the opposing view.
An example of what I consider sad is the name calling of political figures of whom we do not approve. An example could be if I was extremely distressed at the current Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and started deriding him as John Boner.
It's no surprise that I would be called to task by his supporters for showing disrespect to the man who was elected to his position. BTW, stating "I didn't vote for him" is no justification for vitriol.
Yet some (notice I didn't use all) of the same people who cry about disrespect toward John Boehner, will refer to the president as Barack H. Osama or a similar iteration. Of course now that Bin Laden is gone his detractors will have to find another negative associative name.
I understand we are all passionate with respect to our beliefs and what we view as what is politically right and what is politically wrong; I am no different.
I'm thankful however that we do have the freedom to debate our opinions and grouse about what our government is or is not doing that upsets us.
Maybe it's naiveté on my part that I believe we have many more similarities than differences. I dunno? :dunno:
Regardless, it would be nice if we could pare out the anger from our debates despite the fact that the subject matter does tend to bring out the worst in us.
And Tery it os only pure coincidence I'm writing this following your last post. I have been wanting to say this for awhile. :biggrin2:
Now I will shut up! :zip:

[Tery]

Well, to me, calling Boehner "John of Orange" or McConnell "McTurtle" is poking gentle fun at them. If I wanted to seriously get ugly, I surely could - just as some people are ugly about Democratic (and leaving off the "ic" is another way of deriding them) politicians. I see no harm in this sort of nickname but if it bothers you, I'm sorry.

BTW, I have never referred to John as "Boner" - that's just juvenile :wink2:

[dsurrett]

Most of us feel passionate on the subject of politics, to one degree of another, from time to time. The democrats say the republicans trample the constitution, the republicans say the same about the dems. I agree with the republicans more than with the dems, but don't agree with everything they say. If I showed our current president as much disrespect as many (but not all) democrats showed Bush Jr. or Sr., I'd be shouted down. The Bushes were facists and warmongers you say? The guy we've got now is a socialist and marxist. Moot point. I'll cringe if he gets reelected and the democrats regain control of the house, but will most likely survive.
I say vote them ALL out and start over with a bunch of inexperienced folks who haven't learned to play the pork barreling political games and spend billions of dollars to gain each others support.
But that's just me. It's Friday and I have over a week off from my full time job starting at 4:30 PM today. Gonna try to chill and not let anything other than the Losers Club fight against Pennywise get me tensed up. Also hope to see how the good people of Chester's Mill deal with that pesky dome.
Long days and pleasant nights.

[MrsSmeej]

I should know better than to stick my big phat nose (it's not really fat :biggrin2:) into a politics thread. These type of threads are rife with double standards which I find sad. I'm sure many of us here could meet at a coffee shoppe somewhere and have a lively (and yes, maybe heated) political debate and yet leave as friends silently considering points made by those with the opposing view.
An example of what I consider sad is the name calling of political figures of whom we do not approve...


:eek2:

Pretty sure the person who is guilty here was me;
When describing Mitch McConnell used profanity.
Please accepts apologies; it wasn't very nice.
Next time that I'm rhyming things I promise to think twice.

It's just that McConnell drives me absolutely mad.
Think that his decision not to compromise is bad.
He has been so partisan that he would not agree
To something Obama wanted, even were it free.

In my own opinion, Mitch McConnell is a jerk.
His responsibility that Congress didn't work.
But I promise not to swear again in future times.
(Not unless I cannot find another word that rhymes.)

:wink2:

[MrsSmeej]

:down:

Senator from Maine told her constituents she's done.
Doesn't like her colleagues and she isn't having fun.
Choosing between their way or the highway - chose to go.
We've all lost a voice of reason with Senator Snowe.

Last time that she ran she won with 70%.
But, in this term's Congress, found she couldn't make a dent
In the wreck Republicans have made upon The Hill.
Snowe will hit the road because her job has made her ill.

:eek2:

[91rewoT]

Couldn't sleep for all the coughing I've been doing, so decided to get up and roam the board. I don't usually go to political threads, because that's not what I'm here for...but somehow I found myself here anyway, and I ended up reading this entire thread. I didn't take the time to thank everyone individually (why, I don't know, time is something I have plenty of right now!), so just want to thank all who have posted. As always, I thoroughly enjoyed MrsSmeej's rhymes, and I was impressed with the overall respectful tone and the way people apologized if something they said was misinterpreted. On Congress...I think maybe we should just replace the whole lot of them and require the new Congress to speak in rhymes. :wink2:

[MrsSmeej]

John McCain and Lindsey Graham - opposed to Susan Rice -
Went before the media to offer their advice.
Said they'd block Obama if he chooses her for State...
Personnel advice from Sarah Palin's running mate?

Both men say that, after our Ambassador was slain,
Susan Rice was wrong and thus, according to McCain,
There is a conspiracy that rivals Watergate.
They want Rice investigated... Not the head at State.

I was once a fan of John McCain's. Not anymore.
Chose him in 2000; would have in 2004.
Not the man he was back then; now all he does is grouse.
Maybe he'd like Rice if she saw Russia from her house.

:glare:

Dear Ms. Mod, I looked for a thread
Instead of this one that's long dead.
But I couldn't find
Something of it's kind.
Please feel free to move what I've said.
:love:

[Moderator]

This still feels like the right place. :smile2:

[PatInTheHat]

This still feels like the right place. :smile2:
Indeej, can't be no wrong place for a Smeej:y::wink2::y:!

[Tery]

Funny thing is, the last time someone named Rice was up for this position, they were 100% on board with it. They say that Susan Rice lied - an allegation of which they have NO proof. But when Condi actually did lie about Iraq, that was a-okay. F**king hypocrites! :glare:

[Lily Sawyer]

Smeejie Squeegie, you are brilliant. I don't know how you are able to sum up all the political shenanigans this country dishes up in rhyming verse. It makes me head hurt to even think of trying to come with th rhyme scheme. I'm glad you resurrected this thread! :love:

[MrsSmeej]

Welcome to the One Thirteen; farewell One, One, Two.
I can almost guarantee we won't be missing you.
Maybe your replacements will be better - Can't be worse...
Not unless the Congress shifts from stalled into reverse.

Even on the fiscal cliff you only kicked the can.
Hopefully, the One Thirteen can hatch a better plan.
All you ever did was fight and, thus, got nothing done.
In the end, I wonder what it is you think you won?
:eyebrow:

[guido tkp]

it will get worse, i have no doubt
this congress will offend
the R's & D's can only pout
thus progress will upend

it would be nice if once or twice,
these dolts could get it right
but truth requires too high a price
it's easier just to fight

at least then, when punches land
scores can then be savored...
and we the people, this merry band
can see which team is favored

but it's a blood sport, this
and no victor can be rendered
and its our future that is being dissed
when politics become so blendered

is this the way it really must be
or can we make 'em make a change
can make them listen to the 'we...'
'fore all become e'en more deranged

only when 'we' all get mad
mad as a proverbial hatter
will pols affect to not be bad
and understand that 'we' do matter