DescentBB

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Rudy's problem isn't just wives. It's overt cooperation with segments of the New Jersey and Staten Island
Mafia crews. Hell, his Police Commissioner was convicted of lying to a grand jury about one meeting, and a little digging(at the level which is routine for Federal campaigns) will reveal a ton of details about how Rudy 'cleaned New York of the Mob'. All he did was put the screws on a couple families and open the doors for a couple others.

Well if Rudy was a democrat he'd be a shoo in. And be careful Slick with guilt by association as Obama is just as bad yet it didn't prevent him from reaching top slot.

explain, if you will, the Obama connection with the Mob. Sure, all political types rub shoulders with dubious contractors, other shady types, but Rudy clearly set in place a set of conditions that ALLOWED known gangsters to work city projects. What, exactly, would you have in mind when you make the inane comment that 'Obama is just as bad'?

flip wrote:The politicians would have us believe it takes a higher capacity to perform in their job, when in reality, they sit and have **** ideological arguments, just like us, and then vote their consciences, just like us.

find me ten men, or women, of serious conscience on Capitol Hill and call me shocked.

callmeslick wrote:..


explain, if you will, the Obama connection with the Mob. Sure, all political types rub shoulders with dubious contractors, other shady types, but Rudy clearly set in place a set of conditions that ALLOWED known gangsters to work city projects...

I don't know who is worse etc. and have no clue about your allegations of "known gangsters" enabled by Rudy but I find it funny that if a republican has some interaction with these guys they are "known gangsters" but when democrats do it they are referred to as 'Union leaders' and 'Union Organizers' and the connection is euphemistically cleansed like with your carefully spun disclaimer "all political types rub shoulders with dubious contractors, other shady types"! Lol!
I'm guessing Daley-Chicago Mob-Senator Obama has some shoulder rubbing that rivals Rudys setting in place conditions that enabled Gangsters...

flip wrote:Honestly, I'd vote for any new face, non-career politician. At least his or her's freshness would at least make it take time for them to acclimate. and hell who knows, may find another that aint skeered of ****.

EDIT: Vote in the noobies . The politicians would have us believe it takes a higher capacity to perform in their job, when in reality, they sit and have **** ideological arguments, just like us, and then vote their consciences, just like us. The difference I see is that on this board I hear honest assessments and then the seeking of the good solution. A sharp contrast to the **** I hear on TV and then even sometimes parroted here.

Flip you reminded me of something I read recently that describes how congress has become a self perpetuating dysfunctional body:

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.


Now, put the cold water away.

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he will be attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs OR even why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Finally, after replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

And that, my fellow monkeys, is how Congress operates. And precisely why we need to REPLACE ALL the original monkeys this November.

~Author unknown

Thats a cute story, but , again, how are you going to get those who spray the water to stop?

Gooberman wrote:Thats a cute story, but , again, how are you going to get those who spray the water to stop?

*Outlaw lobbiests

*Reduce campaign contributions to a small dollar amount only legal to give if you are a registered voter

*Provide airtime for candidates and limit their time to that.

*Make the national debates under the control of a non political entity...like a lottery draw from a list of colleges.

*Make the congress arrive for session without knowing which committee they will serve on and all entities that used to lobby politicians will now have to appear before one of the randomly selected committees to plead their case publicly to petition congress to pass whatever legislation they seek.
Those entities will have to stop bribing our congress and instead spend all that lobbing money on TV ads to convince us voters to approach our representatives to effect the change since the representatives will now only cater to our whims since they can't buy elections with special interest/big party dollars.

*Make it a treasonous offense to provide material or monetary gifts/loans/assistance to a representative.

*Make congress partake in the same services they force us to endure...healthcare, retirement accounts and their salary will be tied to an index that is a function of a combination of the GDP and unemployment rate.

*Make them balance the budget

*Make the ballots a weighted ballot so you vote for your choice of thee or four candidates ranked in the order of your preference.

*Make them pass a line item veto or else make a real anti-earmark anti-rider bill so you can vote up or down on an issue without also being forced to vote against something you otherwise would be in favor of

Do that then we'll go get some breakfast and return to do more before lunch....

How will I ever get them to vote themselves out of their fatcatbird seats into those conditions? To get them to essentially vote to have the water hose removed from the hands of the greedy bastards?

It won't be easy but they are setting us up for a fall that will bring out a revolt of sorts so if enough of us start clamoring for a platform like the one I laid out and disaster strikes due to their epic abuse then in the wake of that disaster maybe we can attract enough support with our voice of reason to enact our bloodless coup d'état. When the change looks inevitable they always try to take credit for it coming, we just have to be ready to put them in their new place as described above.

But first enough of you have to quit believing that bull★■◆● line that it can't be done.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Rudy's problem isn't just wives. It's overt cooperation with segments of the New Jersey and Staten Island
Mafia crews. Hell, his Police Commissioner was convicted of lying to a grand jury about one meeting, and a little digging(at the level which is routine for Federal campaigns) will reveal a ton of details about how Rudy 'cleaned New York of the Mob'. All he did was put the screws on a couple families and open the doors for a couple others.

Well if Rudy was a democrat he'd be a shoo in. And be careful Slick with guilt by association as Obama is just as bad yet it didn't prevent him from reaching top slot.

explain, if you will, the Obama connection with the Mob. Sure, all political types rub shoulders with dubious contractors, other shady types, but Rudy clearly set in place a set of conditions that ALLOWED known gangsters to work city projects. What, exactly, would you have in mind when you make the inane comment that 'Obama is just as bad'?

So Bill Ayers, card carrying weatherman terrorist at large and now acceptable in Lib dining salons and the bastions of education, was one. While Ayers was not a union thug, The Chicago Annanburg Challenge he led acted like one:

"CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Then we have Obama's criminal buddy Rezko. I wonder what favors Obama promised Rezko for help in purchasing a choice piece of property (I know, Obama explained it was all quite innocent and we should believe him.)

And mob ties? How about Alexi Giannoulias who Obama has campaigned for and helped raise cash for:

"Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help."

Have fun

Will Robinson wrote: But first enough of you have to quit believing that **** line that it can't be done.

If it is any consolation I want to believe you. But so long as elections are determined by TV ads, you wont get any politictions willing to do any of those things in your list.

In my mind there's no need to go around predicting that the world will change tomorrow, but a healthy refusal to accept the status quo is a good thing, when the status quo isn't right. Everywhere I look the one sure thing bringing people down is the acceptance of things that are unacceptable just because that's the way things are and they don't seem to be changing. It's not like history isn't on our side.

woodchip wrote:[So Bill Ayers, card carrying weatherman terrorist at large and now acceptable in Lib dining salons and the bastions of education, was one. While Ayers was not a union thug, The Chicago Annanburg Challenge he led acted like one:

Are you insane? Comparing some dweeb radical turned frumpy academic with Organized Crime?

Then we have Obama's criminal buddy Rezko. I wonder what favors Obama promised Rezko for help in purchasing a choice piece of property (I know, Obama explained it was all quite innocent and we should believe him.)

this falls into the class of thing I referred to with 'all politicians are going to rub shoulders with some unsavory types'. Still, utterly nothing has EVER been shown to have been amiss past a local being too generous to the political rising star.

And mob ties? How about Alexi Giannoulias who Obama has campaigned for and helped raise cash for:

I refer to hiring mobbed up guys for your inner staff circle, and clearly committing to policies that enabled two known Criminal organizations to profit at city expense, and you come back with this:

"Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help."

Puhleeze, just face the fact you don't like Obama for whatever reason, man up and admit it. Don't feel you have to resort to some sort of looney stretching of the truth to sell me on your personal reality. You embarrass yourself.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In my mind there's no need to go around predicting that the world will change tomorrow, but a healthy refusal to accept the status quo is a good thing, when the status quo isn't right. Everywhere I look the one sure thing bringing people down is the acceptance of things that are unacceptable just because that's the way things are and they don't seem to be changing. It's not like history isn't on our side.

well put.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:[So Bill Ayers, card carrying weatherman terrorist at large and now acceptable in Lib dining salons and the bastions of education, was one. While Ayers was not a union thug, The Chicago Annanburg Challenge he led acted like one:

Are you insane? Comparing some dweeb radical turned frumpy academic with Organized Crime?

Tell me sweety, define the way the CAC and Ayers handled donations to get the money into the hands of Acorn differs from union mafia thugs taking dues money and giving it to politicians?

callmeslick wrote:

Then we have Obama's criminal buddy Rezko. I wonder what favors Obama promised Rezko for help in purchasing a choice piece of property (I know, Obama explained it was all quite innocent and we should believe him.)

this falls into the class of thing I referred to with 'all politicians are going to rub shoulders with some unsavory types'. Still, utterly nothing has EVER been shown to have been amiss past a local being too generous to the political rising star.

In this case it was a bit more than rubbing shoulders. Look for Obama to pardon him when Obama gets voted out of office.

callmeslick wrote:

And mob ties? How about Alexi Giannoulias who Obama has campaigned for and helped raise cash for:

I refer to hiring mobbed up guys for your inner staff circle, and clearly committing to policies that enabled two known Criminal organizations to profit at city expense, and you come back with this:

"Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help."

Puhleeze, just face the fact you don't like Obama for whatever reason, man up and admit it. Don't feel you have to resort to some sort of looney stretching of the truth to sell me on your personal reality. You embarrass yourself.

What is embarassing is your failure to understand that Obama's support for Giannoulias and his mob family is not for altruistic reasons. When you receive a favor from a mobster, you are expected to return the favor. I just wonder what favor Obama got.

woodchip wrote:Tell me sweety, define the way the CAC and Ayers handled donations to get the money into the hands of Acorn differs from union mafia thugs taking dues money and giving it to politicians?

well, I'm pretty certain it didn't involve firearms or power tools inflicted on the reluctant payers.......oh, and lose the 'sweety' nonsense.

What is embarassing is your failure to understand that Obama's support for Giannoulias and his mob family is not for altruistic reasons. When you receive a favor from a mobster, you are expected to return the favor. I just wonder what favor Obama got.

typical of the sad state of political discourse. When the phrase "I just wonder" enters into your argument, you might as well throw any pretense of rational deliberation out the window.

Yea, and nit picking one’s debate style to avoid a point…

The debate tactics used by some…are so obvious. You should just stick to ignoring a point made.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Tell me sweety, define the way the CAC and Ayers handled donations to get the money into the hands of Acorn differs from union mafia thugs taking dues money and giving it to politicians?

well, I'm pretty certain it didn't involve firearms or power tools inflicted on the reluctant payers.......oh, and lose the 'sweety' nonsense.

What is embarassing is your failure to understand that Obama's support for Giannoulias and his mob family is not for altruistic reasons. When you receive a favor from a mobster, you are expected to return the favor. I just wonder what favor Obama got.

typical of the sad state of political discourse. When the phrase "I just wonder" enters into your argument, you might as well throw any pretense of rational deliberation out the window.

Once you understand the mind of a racist, the arguments become clear.

Bee

And when you understand Bee's definition of racist as not agreeing with Obama, then her viewpoints become clear.

That's a hell of an accusation Bett, Might be true but I see nothing to suggest that in anything Woodchip has posted. He's making a political statement from his view of things, and to try and undermine that with slurs and accusations is weak and cowardly. I can see it coming now Bett, because I kinda use you as my spy . So, anyone that disagrees with Obama is fair game to be labeled a racist? You just did.

<Moderator hat>
Pre-emptive warning: Keep this civil, folks.
</Moderator hat>

flip wrote:... I can see it coming now Bett, because I kinda use you as my spy . So, anyone that disagrees with Obama is fair game to be labeled a racist? You just did.

That's been a tactic in use by his supporters since he won the nomination a couple of years ago!

.

Bet51987 wrote:... But anyone who believes that the color of Obama's skin isn't a factor in parts of the Tea Party movement...
Bettina

You should rephrase that to read the color of his skin is a factor behind a small percentage of the attendee's at some Tea Party events.
Because there is nothing in the platform of the Tea Party people about race. There is no racial motivation showing from the VAST majority of them.
If not and using your logic of guilt by association is in fact valid how many groups are you associated with that also have racists and murderers and pedophiles among them? Should we say Bet has pedophilia as a factor in the makeup of her character?!?

The trick to not thinking woodchip is a racist is to have debated him when Clinton was in office.....

I must have missed it then. What was the racial slur again?

so I guess by using this logic anyone that Votes or supports the Democrats are Racist, since the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam support the DNC and they are both Racist Organizations. not Only are they Racist but they are Racist thugs. and many of them have strong Muslim ties so now that makes those same DNC supporters potential Muslim Terrorists. it appears we have the 7 levels of Kevin Bacon

Guilt by association is a terrible thing

flip wrote:I must have missed it then. What was the racial slur again?

flip, I think what Goob means is I was just as harsh about Herr Clinton as I am Obama. Race has nothing to do with my dislike for either men. If dear sweet Bee cares to check my posts she will find where I was quite supportive of Condolezza Rice for president as I was Colin Powell. But then both individuals have actual real world experience as opposed to the gadabout now in office.

Has anyone examined the ridiculous mental gymnastics required to claim a sitting president has no executive experience?

Yeah, that was possibly a legitimate complaint in 2008 (though a look at presidential history might suggest otherwise), but now, in 2011? It doesn't exactly hold water.

Bush Sr. is still one of the most powerful men in this country, with a known party-boy son to take the spotlight. I'd venture to guess even more-so than Obama his self.

EDIT: I knew that Woody , but If I let you get indiscriminately labeled as a racist, I risk the same thing happening to myself

Bet51987 wrote:I'm going to leave this alone and let Slick make his own judgement.

Bettina

...which I'll do, ultimately, anyway.....For what it's worth, I didn't see the comments/assertions that Woodchip made as inherently racist. Now, I'll be the first to state that I have nowhere near the back-history to know for sure, but I go with not-guilty until proven otherwise. What I DID see in WC's words was someone who so deeply dislikes or distrusts Obama as to make utterly foolish assertions. To compare Bill Ayer's fundraising methods with the Mafia should simply be laughably buffoonish. No more, no less. Racist? No, stupid. Now, in saying this, I am not asserting that Woodchip is stupid, it's just that THOSE WORDS were stupid. We all do stupid stuff, say dumb things, generally when emotions override rational thought. No big deal.

null0010 wrote:Has anyone examined the ridiculous mental gymnastics required to claim a sitting president has no executive experience?

So the whole argument prior to being elected the first time that he has no experience or anyone else for that matter, holds no merit as the OJT is such any quasi competent person will learn to be POTUS. After the first week or so I guess you are ready to handle anything the office of president throws at you. So the arguments the Dems had about Palin's lack of experience and being a heartbeat away from running the country was really just a canard. After all, Obama has proven even a useful idiot can run then country.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:Has anyone examined the ridiculous mental gymnastics required to claim a sitting president has no executive experience?

... So the arguments the Dems had about Palin's lack of experience and being a heartbeat away from running the country was really just a canard ...

Nice strawman, there.

I don't see Obama's record as sitting President as any great resume enhancement.
Sure he now knows where most of the bathrooms in the white house are and what to say at an intelligence briefing when they tell you they found bin Laden, how get to Martha's Vineyard by helicopter, how to appoint political allies as Czars and he's gotten real good at teleprompter etc. but taking an executive position with immunity from being fired for your first four years doesn't automatically make you a good executive. He has four years to suck as badly as he wants to at the job.

But I guess for those who think he fixed the high cost of health care, lowered unemployment, turned the economy around with nothing but a left over slogan or two and found bin Laden when no one else could they are going to say he's the best damn executive in the race.

That being said I don't see anyone else we are going to be allowed to vote for who can claim any better.

I often wonder how he gets any work done, being on the campaign trail every time I see him. I don’t think that counts for much experience.

I seem to remember many more images of other presidents at their desk.

Spidey wrote:I often wonder how he gets any work done, being on the campaign trail every time I see him. I don’t think that counts for much experience.

I seem to remember many more images of other presidents at their desk.

maybe. but keep in mind, we're only seeing one small shard of what he does.

At least campaigning is a tiny iota more productive than taking a vacation.

null0010 wrote:At least campaigning is a tiny iota more productive than taking a vacation.

That is debatable since campaigning leads to compromising ones position in exchange for donations and support where as vacations don't but in his defense Obama has managed to squeeze in quite a few vacations in between his campaigning...

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:At least campaigning is a tiny iota more productive than taking a vacation.

That is debatable since campaigning leads to compromising ones position in exchange for donations and support where as vacations don't but in his defense Obama has managed to squeeze in quite a few vacations in between his campaigning...

He's not taken nearly as many vacation days as George W. Bush, at least.

I've seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.

null0010 wrote:He's not taken nearly as many vacation days as George W. Bush, at least.

I was going to point that out, but I figured I'd be better off biting my tongue. We all know how much Bush was raked across the coals for the time he spent on vacation...unfairly so, I think most of us would agree. To direct the same criticism at Obama seems rather disingenuous, especially since I can't recall him being portrayed as spending long chunks of time "campaigning."

flip wrote:I've seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.

A variation on one of Walt Kelly's best Pogo lines," We have met the enemy and he is US".