Yeah... everybody's bitching about it. I live between Kansas City and Sedalia, and it's been reported on alot with the Kansas City Stations as well as the ones in Columbia. They spend 7 million on this crap, and now they want to put a toll on I-70 because they don't have enough money to fix it. PLEASE.

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.

MO voters certainly screwed it up when they elected Claire McCaskill to the Senate (even you have been very critical of her).

That affair was reprehensible. However, there is a difference between having a couple of affairs and being a serial adulterer. Also, I don't seem to recall Ike being worshipped by millions many decades after his presidency ended. (Besides, many liberals often say that Eisenhower is their vision of what an ideal Republican should be, so I am sort of surprised you attacked him.)

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 February 9, 201213 yr by Roman

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?

Max, you may be interested in this. A liberal columnist describes JFK as a "monster," in part due to new revelations in this book.

I should warn there's some description of sex acts in this.

http://www.tnr.com/b...566/jfk-monster

Edited February 9, 201213 yr by CarlD2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 February 9, 201213 yr by Max

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.

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.

So, enjoy watching the GOP crash and burn this year. I know I am.

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.

I never said you were childish, and this comment is why I wioll now go back to not speaking to you about politics.

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:

THANK YOU! I can see everyone else in this forum acting like an adult, but you. NOBODY HERE should have to explain something to you all the time. Then, hell, you flip-flop more than a dying fish in a boat with how you post your comments. I've seen others here make a real effort to change the garbage we all were a part of 3 years ago...except you. You can have whatever views yuou have (too bad i never figured out what they were), and the rest of us will talk grown up talk.

Have a blessed day, Max.

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

Edited February 10, 201213 yr by Max

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.

Speaking of media darling Christie, he is now attacking someone for not sympathizing enough with the poor, even though Romney said the same thing. I have yet to hear Christie attack Romney.

http://www.politico....0212/72662.html

Edited February 10, 201213 yr by CarlD2

I have yet to hear Christie attack Romney.

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.

I think Romney is probably more electable than Huntsman, mostly because Huntsman seemed so unprepared. I'm still not sure why he ran this year.

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.

Then be thrill;ed Max. Enjoy. And when Romney gets his tail kicked in Nov., don't say you weren't told.

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.

The House flipping is possible, but the odds are rather difficult since Republicans did quite a number with redistricting. They've reduced Democrats to as little as three seats in some large state.