Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

My goodness. This state is so damn backwards. We are now hearing about a rumor that the city and state may go ahead and introduce a 1 cent sales tax to help either build or refurbish a new football stadium. There is nothing wrong at all with the building the Rams play in now. many of us wish we had a stadium like Arrowhead here. But, that once again proves how backwards Jeff. City is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Well, we see that completely differently. I though an affair was an affair. But you seem to think that if a Republican has an affair, well that was just one of those silly little things. You know, Ike just went on a crazy old lark that shouldn't even been brought up. But now Kennedy? What a scumbag for cheating on his wife. I also didn't realize posting a link to a article about a possible affair is attacking him, when you called Kennedy a scumbag. Now whose attacking who? I never said one word against Ike.

And you wonder why I decided to calm down talking politics with you, Max. LOL.

Edited by Roman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't get any JFK worship. This isn't 1982, it's 2012 - the Kennedys are long gone from politics and JFK's influence on our national politics is nonexistent.

People remember the idea of JFK, not who he was. It's similar to Reagan. Do you think any of Reagan's actual policies or views are important to today's GOP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And you know, over here they bitch and moan about Arrowhead, because it was built in 1972. SO FREAKIN WHAT. they act like ti's not big enough... it IS for Kansas city, not for Dallas... but it's fine for Kansas city. And every team that comes to Arrowhead LOVES the facility and can't say enough good things about it and the way it's laid out. There are just a certain segment of society in any city that's never satisfied, and always wants some new toy to play with. Your stadium was built in 1995!!! Now they say it's outdated? and want to take taxpayer money for a new one? Let the damn team go somewhere else, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

JFK's or any other politicians personal affairs are of no concern of mine and honestly, I don't feel like it's really anything to really worry about. For me, I'm much more concerned about the policy of a President. Reagan gets elevated and he contributed to political discourse being lowered, wanted to do nothing about apartheid and may have sabotaged hostage talks to benefit his own election. That comes far more unsettling than any personal affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Carl, it's definately true that the intensity of the JFK worship has gone down over time (and I expect the same thing to happen to Reagan twenty years from now as well), as fewer and fewer people remain that were alive during his presidency. (I really appreciate you sharing that article, because I can't recall a liberal ever trashing JFK before.) Still, you have folks writing "inspiring" biographies of JFK, such as Chris Matthews. And I have seen recent public opinion polls rank JFK, Reagan, and Clinton among our greatest presidents, right in the same league with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I believe that having one or two affairs is not as bad as having dozens of them. And Roman, I never said that Ike's affair "was just one of those silly little things" and that his affair shouldn't be brought up because he was a "crazy old lark." (So please don't put words in my mouth.) It's really funny that you suggest that I am childish when you are hardly a paragon of maturity yourself.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never said you were childish, and this comment is why I wioll now go back to not speaking to you about politics. You take this stuff way too seriously and the personal attacks that you seem to like are not what anyone else is doing. So, enjoy watching the GOP crash and burn this year. I know I am. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've always maintained that Obama would win against Romney. But, you should be careful what you wish for, because Chris Christie--a man even I despise and who liberals will find far worse than Romney--is going to win in 2016 once Barry gets his additional four years.

Rpman, if you read my words carefully, you will note that I "suggested" that you thought I was childish (as opposed to you actually stating I was childish). To prove my point, I bring up this following remark that you made on November 4, 2011:

Believe me, I would be thrilled if you never discussed politics with me again.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This will never happen, since Christie is so gung-ho for Romney. He endorsed Willard--instead of Huntsman--because he wanted to do all he could to ensure that the GOP would nominate somebody unelectable (so he can be there to pick up the piece up the pieces in 2016). And since the GOP establishment does everything Christie tells them to do, they then put all their eggs in the Romney basket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A friend of mine just told me that someone at this CPAC conference said they wished Rahel M. Had never been born. I mean, I even have to laugh at the stuff coming out of these peoples' mouths. How they think that party will win a GE is truly beyond me. I don't see the Senate changing, but if Dems do the right things they can take back the House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • It seemed to be your intent. coming into a thread I started and making multiple posts saying my data was wrong. In the next paragraph you say "Of course, I was suspicious from the very first instance where what I saw & heard did not agree with what it should have.  I'm very glad to know why." That certainly didn't stop you from immediately saying the data was wrong, until I provided additional receipts. Why did you not check the daily episode guide (for instance, this one for the 1980's) I posted for the world to see for exactly this reason...to help confirm airdates: http://daytimeroyaltyonline.com/days-daily-summaries-1980-1989-t15361.html? That is what you should be checking BEFORE you make any posts in the future like this, trying to suggest something from my data is incorrect. You could have also messaged me and asked me why your dates weren't adding up with what the correct data is. I would have fast forwarded through that video you posted, spotted Roman and Hope and immediately have told you that was the 11/1/83 episode.
    • Jason, just let me say that it was not my intent to any way impugn any of your data  or research. I'm very sorry if it came out that way. Obviously the person I got these 4 November episodes from has mislabeled files, multiples, which I was certainly unaware of.  When I am editing it is all about what I see & hear. Later, I find time for greater reflection.  Of course, I was suspicious from the very first instance where what I saw & heard did not agree with what it should have.  I'm very glad to know why.  If you find you are no longer interested in the edit, that is fine. I have no ego in this. I did it only to share it.
    • I feel like Vernon and Anita need to not be hypocrites and try and take the heat off Bill in this case. It's clear that the family used him as a fixer and especially knowing he helped with Martin's situation, they need to either be quiet or support him. BTW...with Vanessa being in the hospital for food poisoning, am I the only one who thought Shanice was gonna say she's pregnant or had an STD? The only reason I say STD is because she hasn't had any memorable sex partners, but I definitely don't believe she just had food poisoning.
    • Yeah, I mean I know that the name still pertains. I just laugh at it not now being called Arizona Dust, but, I admit it simply does not have the same ring to it. Above, that is interesting that Arizona had already come up before the crisis. 
    • Anita vs. Leslie, bring it!
    • Leslie and her family are from Chicago? Anita's background also includes being a former Chi-Town native? Might they connect this and go somewhere with it?
    • Honestly who's to say Leslie even birthed Eva, I mean she's a liar, I wouldn't believe a word she says about Eva being Ted's(or hers)
    •   1. 11/1/83 cast/set list:  

      Please register in order to view this content

          The "11/2/83" video you posted of Ruth Buzzi's scenes includes Roman and Hope in them, meaning the video you posted is actually 11/1/83, since Roman and Hope aren't in 11/2/83.   2. The video you posted of "11/2/83" has scenes with Roman and Hope. As you can see from my cast/set list, Roman and Hope are not in the 11/2/83 episode (see above note):   4573...11/2/83: Cast: Mickey, Julie, Doug, Maggie, Neil, Don, Marie, Alex, Liz, Andre as Tony, Gwen, Chris, Eugene, Sandy, Letitia, Charlene, Mrs. Whiting, Wanda/Guard, Dave, Delia, Saleslady # 1, Saleslady # 2, Figure in Dark, Raven/animal, Cats/animals, Birds/animals.   2.  11/3/83 :My video collection starts with 11/4/83. so I don't have the 11/1/83 or 11/3/83 video, but in addition to the cast/set list for 11/3/83, here is also the parking clearance call sheet for that day, showing Ruth was not only in the cast/set list but did work that day:     They even had hired the animal trainer and all the animals for the day, so It's sort of a certainty that her scenes were not cut that day, or it would have been a big waste of the budget. 3. As for 11/7/83, I just fast-forwarded through that whole episode myself. Letitia is in it from start to finish. It's her big final episode where she is killed. She starts the episode saying "Eugene, are you there?" In the next act, Marlena shows up and meets Letitia's lion. Later in the episode, Letitia is killed by "Eugene" (the Salem Slasher in a Eugene mask).   So, as we can see from your own post, the 11/2/83 date you have listed on that video is incorrect, since Hope and Roman are in that video but not in the 11/2/83 episode.It seems the dates you have on all your early November 1983 episodes are incorrect.   When you post videos and suggest that my data is incorrect, do you not first compare who is in the scenes and see if that matches who is in the episode? You didn't do that with the "11/2/83" episode, which based on Roman and Hope being in it means that is actually 11/1/83. Best to do something like that first before suggesting my data and research is incorrect.
    • Within the Dupree family, I predict Vernon/Anita will be conflicted about what to do about Bill and his role in the whole Ted/Silk Press Sheila situation... especially since Bill knows where the particular bone about Martin is buried. Dani, Chelsea, and Naomi's reactions to what Bill possibly did isn't hard to guess.. but Hayley's reactions will be interesting to hear.  Especially given her recent pregnancy scare.. she might not be so much on Bill's side, or she'll totally surprise us and be totally on Bill's side.   Either way, I think Martin's secret will be the main focus in May sweeps.. with the fall out of the Eva secret playing out in the background... while the Joey/Vanessa/Doug thing continues to boil/develop.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy