Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • 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

It's truly a party of evil. On the one hand they want tax cuts for the rich and create the debt from Clinton surpluses, and on the other they complain and want the poor to pay more to finance their tax cuts and debt which was created from their tax cuts and wars of choice based on lies. It's sickening, they are sickening, and anyone who votes for them is sickening too.

Edited by quartermainefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Qfan, your statemant that anybody who has ever voted for a Republican is sickening is way out of line. For argument's sake, even if everything in the Republican Party platform is pure evil, there are still thankfully people in this society who base their voting decisions on the quality of the particular candidates in any given race, as opposed to basing those decisions on whether said candidates simply have an "R" or a "D" next to their names.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I stand by my statement. If you support a party that takes a government surplus, hands out tax cuts for the rich that creates whoppers of deficits, and then turns right around and says "look ma, we have no money! We have to cut programs for the poor!" and then comes back further with "P.S. It is unfair that the rich pay as much as they do, screw the poor, we want blood from a stone on top of our record profits", then that is your business. I don't even know how else to describe the tax and budget policies of the last 12 years or so, and if you don't find Orrin Hatch sickening, then shame on you too.

And as for R vs D and the quality of the candidates, I will look at the quality of any republican who repudiates the tea party, creationism, and supply side economics. You know of any?

Edited by quartermainefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All I gotta say is that it ain't workin' now, friends... Obama is NOT performing well at all. His economic policies are failures... the stimulus was an outrageous waste of money that tremendously accelerated growth of the debt... foreign policy is in shambles... a trail of broken promises to every special interest group out there.

Clearly, this country is NOT in better shape today than when he took office.

Failure. Epic failure? Gettin' there...

By the way, I don't like Orrin Hatch, either. He's a dick. In fact, I'm not a big fan of most of the "entrenched" Republican leaders. Fresh blood, new ideas... that's what we need. And NOT the kind presented by Obama (because they're NOT WORKING!)

By the way... why the HELL do I STILL have a warn status on me? Not that I particularly care, but don't those things scab over and peel off ever? Geez... you'd think I was a frequent hellraiser around here!

Perhaps I could be again, though... Hmmmm... >;)

Edited by GoldenDogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brian, you're wrong! If not for our beloved president--who has been working tirelessly to fix our economy ever since the day he took office--the unemployment rate would be at 25% right now! Clearly, even after two and a half years of Barack in office, our entire economic mess is still the complete fault of Bush (that idiot who can't string together a complete sentence and yet still managed to steal the 2000 election).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem is it's this vicious cycle. Republicans want cuts and more cuts and even more cuts. Democrats huff and puff, but usually go along to get along. Then everyone is shocked when cutting without anything else - even the stimulus plans that were constantly being cut down were not going to be enough - doesn't get a result.

When we live in a society where the worker is stigmatized and seen as an idiot at best and a greedy pig at worst, then jobs won't improve.

Even big Republicans like David Brooks are dubious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html

The question eventually becomes - how many people in power actually want most Americans to be poor or get poorer? How much easier is this for them and their plans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Media darling Michelle Bachmann is returning to her roots, and going even more extreme. Not only has she signed a pledge that says homosexuality is a choice, the pledge also says that blacks were better off during slavery than they are now.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/michele-bachmann-signs-anti-gay-pact-that-says-times-were-better-for-black-kids-during-slavery.html

Never mind that many black families were forcibly split into pieces during slavery.

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2011/07/michelle-bachmann-signs-pledge-that-says-black-children-better-off-during-slavery/

I wonder if our "liberal" media will have anything to say about this racist and patronizing garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No he is not. He never should have been the democratic nominee. That said, the idea of a republican president coming in who believes that man sprung up out of the ground and woman popped out of his rib is frightening. The country is in decline and everything all goes back to the quality of education. If you want to teach kids to believe fairy tales, then where will the scientists come from? If you want to ratchet up the contempt of education with nonsense like "don't trust him, he speaks french!" and "these college northeast elites are not real americans" then what you wind up with is a bunch of buffoons and ministers running for office all racing to shout from the highest hills they don't believe in global warming or evolution, and say the word "science" with a sneer.

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

    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher. 
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
    • Good morning, boys!  I figured that it was time that our Gio was introduced into the hotness thread

      Please register in order to view this content

      @ranger1rg I even included a close up of his face for ya!
    • Under all of Madonna's social media today there is this wave of negative, toxic, absurd comments by Lady Gaga fans telling her how Gaga surpassed her in concert in Copacabana. I mean... Who the hell cares? Why are these fan communities so freaking toxic??? I'm sure Madonna doesn't care... But still. Have some respect for M. Leave her social media alone. Go cheer Gaga and be happy. Why come and spew hate on M??? Crazy world.
    • FYI, again, Ruth/Letitia is not in either of these 2 episodes. So that concludes the 4 episodes I had from Nov. 1983. I don't have the October episodes.
    • Eddie has begun uploading the 1990 episodes. I'm so happy about that. I was mindfully taking a break till there's plenty of episodes I can binge watch when I feel like it. Now that 1989 is complete... I can't wait to press play on February 1989 and resume where I left off.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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