Hey hey hey, Timmay's got something to say!

[BOSSMANPC]

I meant "C students" in life. I didn't mean actual grades, guys.

I meant disbarred layers and failed business leaders are not the best people to have making these decisions.

OPPPS, Sorry 46. Then I totally agree.

 

[awaz]

I meant "C students" in life. I didn't mean actual grades, guys.

I meant disbarred layers and failed business leaders are not the best people to have making these decisions.

OPPPS, Sorry 46. Then I totally agree.

lol, me too

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I also think that the lack of term limits and how they lead to 'politics as a career' is bad for all of us. Politicians are supposed to be our representatives, but if they make a career out of being representatives, how representative are they.

Add in the fact that they spend a good portion of their terms running for election (more than half the time in the house, for example) and it is even worse.

I wish that all terms were one term. If you want to run again after another cycle, fine, but while in office WORK!

 

[elocomotive]

Freedom of speech/expression, no? Oh so sad.

Did I say you didn't have the right to say it? I exercised my same right to call it stupid. Because again - name calling and rhetoric are major obstacles. And nobody promotes those two childish behaviors in politics more than you in this forum. Obama was editor of the Harvard law review, you may disagree with his philosophies, but he's a highly competent, intelligent man.

There is a certain irony that you like Clinton, but call Obama a Nazi. The two had very similar positions on a lot of issues and both are guys willing to reach across the aisle for solutions. Both had health care and gay rights as major legislative issues during their term. Clinton actually signed gun control laws limiting certain assault weapons, unlike Obama to date.

The biggest difference between the two is the political culture that existed during their terms (much better then even despite Clinton's scandals) and the state of the economy (something that the government has limited control over in my opinion).

 

[elocomotive]

We could fix the problems we have in this country and the world if people would put aside their differences, name calling and finger pointing and focus on whats best for the country and it's people.

Sadly, I don't see this happening in my lifetime unless the powers to be prioritize by putting whats best for the country and people instead of kissing the asses of the biggest donators that line their pocket's.

Good post, Boss.

 

[elocomotive]

I also think that the lack of term limits and how they lead to 'politics as a career' is bad for all of us. Politicians are supposed to be our representatives, but if they make a career out of being representatives, how representative are they.

Add in the fact that they spend a good portion of their terms running for election (more than half the time in the house, for example) and it is even worse.

I wish that all terms were one term. If you want to run again after another cycle, fine, but while in office WORK!

I think the bigger issue is the money raising. I don't want to kick out good leaders, just for the sake of an arbitrary time limit. But I agree with the problems you have identified.

I think all campaigns should be publicly financed. This does two things - keeps the special interest money out of the process and allows Congressman to actually "REP" their districts and sees if they can actually manage a pre-set budget. Also, we would all have to endure less political ads.

 

[mattola]

we are all sheep all over the world. only people that had it right were the Hippies

 

[awaz]

I think the bigger issue is the money raising. I don't want to kick out good leaders, just for the sake of an arbitrary time limit. But I agree with the problems you have identified.

I think all campaigns should be publicly financed. This does two things - keeps the special interest money out of the process and allows Congressman to actually "REP" their districts and sees if they can actually manage a pre-set budget. Also, we would all have to endure less political ads.

but then how will everybody determine who they should vote for!!!!

i'm hopeful that all this social media stuff will help with the financial disparity of congressman/politicians vs. your average joe.. if egypt can stage a revolution through social media, someone outside of washington has gotta find a way to run a campaign through it right?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I think the bigger issue is the money raising. I don't want to kick out good leaders, just for the sake of an arbitrary time limit. But I agree with the problems you have identified.

I think all campaigns should be publicly financed. This does two things - keeps the special interest money out of the process and allows Congressman to actually "REP" their districts and sees if they can actually manage a pre-set budget. Also, we would all have to endure less political ads.

Then let them go out and work in the real world for a cycle. The longer they are in the system, the more ill they become (see Kennedy, J. Warner, McCain) These guys are horrible.

 

[loki604]

Did I say you didn't have the right to say it? I exercised my same right to call it stupid. Because again - name calling and rhetoric are major obstacles. And nobody promotes those two childish behaviors in politics more than you in this forum. Obama was editor of the Harvard law review, you may disagree with his philosophies, but he's a highly competent, intelligent man.

There is a certain irony that you like Clinton, but call Obama a Nazi. The two had very similar positions on a lot of issues and both are guys willing to reach across the aisle for solutions. Both had health care and gay rights as major legislative issues during their term. Clinton actually signed gun control laws limiting certain assault weapons, unlike Obama to date.

The biggest difference between the two is the political culture that existed during their terms (much better then even despite Clinton's scandals) and the state of the economy (something that the government has limited control over in my opinion).

Guess the reason.

 

[SLY]

Guess the reason.

lol, nice try.

 

[SLY]

Did I say you didn't have the right to say it? I exercised my same right to call it stupid. Because again - name calling and rhetoric are major obstacles. And nobody promotes those two childish behaviors in politics more than you in this forum. Obama was editor of the Harvard law review, you may disagree with his philosophies, but he's a highly competent, intelligent man.

There is a certain irony that you like Clinton, but call Obama a Nazi. The two had very similar positions on a lot of issues and both are guys willing to reach across the aisle for solutions. Both had health care and gay rights as major legislative issues during their term. Clinton actually signed gun control laws limiting certain assault weapons, unlike Obama to date.

The biggest difference between the two is the political culture that existed during their terms (much better then even despite Clinton's scandals) and the state of the economy (something that the government has limited control over in my opinion).

I posted a pic that you are overly sensitive to. I never called him a Nazi. I don't like the socialist direction Obama and Romney are going to bring this country in. Am I not allowed to feel this way?

 

[dare2be]

Freedom of speech/expression, no? Oh so sad.

Libel/slander is freedom of speech, yes?

 

[dash]

Libel/slander is freedom of speech, yes?

If it's in print, it's libel. Spoken is slander, correct?

/I always get those two mixed up.

 

[dare2be]

Back on topic:

God and Gay Marriage: What Chick-fil-A Could Learn From Marriott - Businessweek

 

[SLY]

Does libel/slander law even exist anymore?

 

[dare2be]

If it's in print, it's libel. Spoken is slander, correct?

/I always get those two mixed up.

A picture is worth 1000 words, so a printed picture is libel x 1000. :p

 

[awaz]

Back on topic:

God and Gay Marriage: What Chick-fil-A Could Learn From Marriott - Businessweek

i dont have a strong feeling one way or another, but i do think its very hypocritical that people who stand up to defend marriage as between a man and a women get hammered in the media and society when all they're doing is expressing their beliefs, same as those who are for gay marriage.

 

[loki604]

i dont have a strong feeling one way or another, but i do think its very hypocritical that people who stand up to defend marriage as between a man and a women get hammered in the media and society when all they're doing is expressing their beliefs, same as those who are for gay marriage.

Not all beliefs are created equal.

If I think people without a college degree shouldn't have the right to vote, I can go shout it through the rooftops, but that doesn't make it a good belief that everyone has to respect. They can shout right back that I'm a moron.

 

[DChero]

i dont have a strong feeling one way or another, but i do think its very hypocritical that people who stand up to defend marriage as between a man and a women get hammered in the media and society when all they're doing is expressing their beliefs, same as those who are for gay marriage.

Agreed. I'm close friends with a lesbian couple that have a pretty strong dislike for their chain because they won't hire gays/fun girls. I don't have a problem with the policy because it's their business. They should be able to hire the people that fit the team the best. What kind of an idiot would try to work for a company that disagrees with their sexual bias anyway?