• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

mgk920 said:
She was just shown to be a planted activist and not a legitimate student.

http://patdollard.com/2012/03/break...st-possible-white-house-operative-with-video/

Par for the course, I;d say.

:r:

Mike
Click to expand...

She's not a student and doesn't attend that university? I don't understand. She is a law student (by all accounts). She is politically active. She supports women's rights. She was accused of being a slut because of her position. Are you trying to say that she baited Rush Limbaugh to call her a slut? Are you trying to say that the democrats planted her in Georgetown as a "law student" because they knew she was politically active and could use her one day to fight a potential republican objection to a requirement for insurance companies/organizations to provide contraception and simultaneously bait a conservative talking head into demeaning her and offending women everywhere?
 
Been reading an interesting article in the New Yorker about the situation in Wisconsin regarding collective bargaining rights and the recall effort. Pretty interesting and it outlines the history behind politics in the state over the past 100 years or so. The main point being that the state has historically been Republican, but that Walker's actions have been way off the chart as far as the TYPE of Republicanism the state has typically seen. Because they are also very pro-labor and pride themselves on having a stellar education system (which also suffered significantly under Walker's budget. Teacher's were also targeted int he union issue). That brought out a lot of people who may consider themselves moderates otherwise, but who were really incensed by the union rights issues.

As for single parenthood being a "contributing factor" to child abuse and neglect, I have nothing to add. That's just the most absurd and inane thing I have heard anyone try to put into legislation in a LONG time. Seriously, did no one raise an objection as they drafted this legislation?! Insanity.
 
Anybody that buys into some Democratic prank about the "Georgetown Law student" being a plant really needs to consider professional help. Here's a link to Georgetown Law School's website showing a photo of Ms Fluke (second row, center, if you need assistance finding her). An activist? Sure. A prank? Boolsheet!:not:
 
wahday said:
Been reading an interesting article in the New Yorker about the situation in Wisconsin regarding collective bargaining rights and the recall effort. Pretty interesting and it outlines the history behind politics in the state over the past 100 years or so. The main point being that the state has historically been Republican, but that Walker's actions have been way off the chart as far as the TYPE of Republicanism the state has typically seen. Because they are also very pro-labor and pride themselves on having a stellar education system (which also suffered significantly under Walker's budget. Teacher's were also targeted int he union issue). That brought out a lot of people who may consider themselves moderates otherwise, but who were really incensed by the union rights issues.

As for single parenthood being a "contributing factor" to child abuse and neglect, I have nothing to add. That's just the most absurd and inane thing I have heard anyone try to put into legislation in a LONG time. Seriously, did no one raise an objection as they drafted this legislation?! Insanity.
Click to expand...

I saw that one too. The New Yorker has been my cultural lifeline for over 25 yrs. Without it these piney woods would be pretty dark.
 
wahday said:
Been reading an interesting article in the New Yorker about the situation in Wisconsin regarding collective bargaining rights and the recall effort. Pretty interesting and it outlines the history behind politics in the state over the past 100 years or so. The main point being that the state has historically been Republican, but that Walker's actions have been way off the chart as far as the TYPE of Republicanism the state has typically seen. Because they are also very pro-labor and pride themselves on having a stellar education system (which also suffered significantly under Walker's budget. Teacher's were also targeted int he union issue). That brought out a lot of people who may consider themselves moderates otherwise, but who were really incensed by the union rights issues.

As for single parenthood being a "contributing factor" to child abuse and neglect, I have nothing to add. That's just the most absurd and inane thing I have heard anyone try to put into legislation in a LONG time. Seriously, did no one raise an objection as they drafted this legislation?! Insanity.
Click to expand...

Yes, republican in a weird, liberal, Abe Lincoln kind of way. The "Lafollette" kind of republican, otherwise known as a "liberal/moderate" republican that no longer exist.

The Walker style republicans are ignorant teabager types that want to turn the entire country into the south economically. We will be taking care of walker soon enough.
 
^^

Thus spake a member of the kind, caring, compassionate and über-civil left!

:h:

BTW, the Democrats just shot themselves in the foot BIG TIME here in Wisconsin last night. And don't deny it.

:-@

Double
:-@ :-@

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
^^

Thus spake a member of the kind, caring, compassionate and über-civil left!

:h:

BTW, the Democrats just shot themselves in the foot BIG TIME here in Wisconsin last night. And don't deny it.

:-@

Double
:-@ :-@

Mike
Click to expand...

What the hell are you raging about now?
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
What the hell are you raging about now?
Click to expand...

All 16 Democrats in the State Senate just pissed (pardon my French) away several thousand great-paying multi-generational UNION jobs in many parts of the state last night. Read up for the rest.

Triple
:-@ :-@ :-@

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
All 16 Democrats in the State Senate just pissed (pardon my French) away several thousand great-paying multi-generational UNION jobs in many parts of the state last night. Read up for the rest.

Triple
:-@ :-@ :-@

Mike
Click to expand...

I'm admittedly largely ignorant of the status of mining in Wisconsin, but I take it this is the article covering the act you reference. A quote:

Mining has received little attention in recent years - there is no large metallic or iron ore mine in operation in Wisconsin today.
But that changed after Gogebic Taconite proposed constructing a $1.5 billion iron ore mine that would employ 600 to 700 workers.
Click to expand...

I may well be mistaken, but 600 to 700 proposed jobs (nothing about union or anything else you breathlessly state) doesn't equal several thousand jobs. Care to correct me?
 
Gedunker said:
I'm admittedly largely ignorant of the status of mining in Wisconsin, but I take it this is the article covering the act you reference. A quote:



I may well be mistaken, but 600 to 700 proposed jobs (nothing about union or anything else you breathlessly state) doesn't equal several thousand jobs. Care to correct me?
Click to expand...

Gogibic Mining would like to start mining Tachonite in the north central Wisconsin region. The catch is they do not want to go through wisconsins approval process, they want to bypass all the safeguards and environmental impact issues and get right to strip mining. Nutbag doesn't state that the last moderate republican in the state voted with the 16 democrats to prevent "expedited" mining rules to be put into effect.

While we have trouble with ag related pollution in our state (go figure), we have some relatively stringent restrictions on mining in the state, as we have been forward thinking in our state on the environment for a long time. Walker would destroy that if he could. In fact, was prevented from doing so last night.

News reports that there are still discussions going on. Nutbag does not state that walker made it nearly impossible to develop wind resources in the state. WI had hammered out a deal the vast majority of people involved would accept. About 1 wind turbine per 40 acres. Walker had the rules changed so you need a whole section (9, 40 acre parcels) and some other crazy rules to erect a wind turbine. Apparently, it would be ok to possibly poison thousands of people and harm natural areas but compensating a few people for flicker effect is out of the question.

We do have a mining industry that is booming in the Frac Sand arena. We have no natural gas to FRAC for, however, we do have the lions share of the nations (possibly worlds?) best sand for mudding purposes in FRAC Sand mining operations. It is safe and when mines operate by state law, it is essentially no different than mining for any other sand or gravel. So that mining industry is booming in WI.
 
Moderator note:



OK folks, while this is generally a "gloves off" political thread that allows things to get a bit personal and perhaps even a bit troll-y, let's lay off the namecalling (i.e. "nutbag"), mmmm-kay?

'Burb Fixer
 
Gedunker said:
Anybody that buys into some Democratic prank about the "Georgetown Law student" being a plant really needs to consider professional help. Here's a link to Georgetown Law School's website showing a photo of Ms Fluke (second row, center, if you need assistance finding her). An activist? Sure. A prank? Boolsheet!:not:
Click to expand...

The simple truth is that there is so much propaganda out there now that many people are unable to separate propaganda that reinforces what they want to believe from reality.
 
imaplanner said:
The simple truth is that there is so much propaganda out there now that many people are unable to separate propaganda that reinforces what they want to believe from reality.
Click to expand...

I'm going submit reality as one of those overused words that needs to go away.
 
ofos said:
On the other side, does anybody think that John Stewart is funny? Truthfully, both he and Stephen Colbert bore the bejesus out of me.
Click to expand...

I do. I find him one of the most consistently funny and insightful people on the air. He is one of the best interviewers around. And as for funny. Watch his recent interview with Ricky Gervais.... Spoiler: panda porno and raccoon sex.
 
otterpop said:
I do. I find him one of the most consistently funny and insightful people on the air. He is one of the best interviewers around. And as for funny. Watch his recent interview with Ricky Gervais.... Spoiler: panda porno and raccoon sex.
Click to expand...

I agree about Jon Stewart. He is pretty funny. His interviews are actually my favorite part of his show. I hope when his days at Comedy Central run out, he transitions into more of an interview-type, as opposed to just a comedian.

Colbert is an idiot.
 
As to the Reality issue, my wife has banned the phrase “back to reality” from the household. As in what you say (or shouldn’t say around her) when you return from vacation – “well, back to reality!” Isn’t it all reality?! She would scream. And I agree. Either its all reality or none of it is.

As for Stewart and Colbert, I like ‘em both. But I don’t watch all that often – just online on occasion. Maybe my delight would be impacted by my frequency of watching. But the whole format and approach is genius in my mind.
 
Long-Term Thought

If I was a card-carrying Democrat I would be seriously worried about this.....

If Mit beats Obama in the presidential election AND the economy continues to spin in the solid/positive direction then in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, the Rs will be able to point at 6-7 years of solid economic news (pre-Obama), 4 years of stagnation (Obama), and 4-12 years of solid economic news (R presidents). That could be a recipe for R control of government for many years. This long-term thought is with an assumption that the economy is going in the right direction and will continue to improve, no matter who is elected in November, 2012.

JMO.

Bear

EDIT: Important edit.....I am not implying that the bad economy is the fault of Obama. Its' source lies in many policies, decisions, and with both parties.
 
btrage said:
I agree about Jon Stewart. He is pretty funny. His interviews are actually my favorite part of his show. I hope when his days at Comedy Central run out, he transitions into more of an interview-type, as opposed to just a comedian.

Colbert is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Stewart is more "serious" without a doubt. Colbert, with his downright silliness, helps us laugh our way through crying time, which seems to come with greater frequency these days.
 
main·stream   [meyn-streem]
the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend: the mainstream of American culture.

Some Facts:
- Fox News Channel is the most watched 24 hour news channel
- Fox News Channel is the second-most trusted television news network in the country, with 42% of respondents reporting they trust the network (ahead of NBC, ABC, CBS, and behind PBS)
- Fox News Channel is also ranked the most distrusted news channel in the country, with 46% of respondents reporting they distrust the network
- In 2010, the network's programs took the top 10 spots for most watched cable news programs in the age 25–54 demographic and the top 12 spots among total cable news programs viewers.


Fox News is part of the mainstream media.

That is all...:r:
 
Hink said:
main·stream   [meyn-streem]
the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend: the mainstream of American culture.

Fox News is part of the mainstream media.

That is all...:r:
Click to expand...

And that is sad / disheartening!
 
Bear Up North said:
If Mit beats Obama in the presidential election AND the economy continues to spin in the solid/positive direction then in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, the Rs will be able to point at 6-7 years of solid economic news (pre-Obama), 4 years of stagnation (Obama), and 4-12 years of solid economic news (R presidents). That could be a recipe for R control of government for many years. This long-term thought is with an assumption that the economy is going in the right direction and will continue to improve, no matter who is elected in November, 2012.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you if the Republicans were completely focused on the economy but they are not. Them doubling down on social issues is what is hurting them more than anything. I'd imagine Republicans would take an even harder line stance on social issues if they win the presidency. That of course will cause the scale to tilt back towards the Democrats.

It honestly amazes me how Republicans are deliberately shooting themselves in the foot with social issues. Mitch Daniels had it right when he said they should put social issues on the back burner but unsurprisingly he got spurned for that comment.
 
Bear Up North said:
If I was a card-carrying Democrat I would be seriously worried about this.....

If Mit beats Obama in the presidential election AND the economy continues to spin in the solid/positive direction then in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, the Rs will be able to point at 6-7 years of solid economic news (pre-Obama), 4 years of stagnation (Obama), and 4-12 years of solid economic news (R presidents). That could be a recipe for R control of government for many years. This long-term thought is with an assumption that the economy is going in the right direction and will continue to improve, no matter who is elected in November, 2012.

JMO.

Bear

EDIT: Important edit.....I am not implying that the bad economy is the fault of Obama. Its' source lies in many policies, decisions, and with both parties.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Look at it from the jobs angle, history shows that in the last 40 years under republican presidents we have had very anemic job growth and we have had very good job growth under democratic presidents. Even the economy under Obama has already grown more jobs than the economy did under Bush. That hasn't translated into a D control of government. I think when it comes to the economy most people realize that it is always much more complicated than who is in charge.

EDIT: Important edit... I am not implying that bad job growth is the fault of republicans. :)
 
Blide said:
:scissors:
It honestly amazes me how Republicans are deliberately shooting themselves in the foot with social issues. Mitch Daniels had it right when he said they should put social issues on the back burner but unsurprisingly he got spurned for that comment.
Click to expand...

Daniels talked the talk but didn't walk it. See various federal lawsuits in re: funding for planned parenthood, immigration, right-to-work, ad nauseum. All signed by the Governor ...
 
Last edited:
Bear Up North said:
If I was a card-carrying Democrat I would be seriously worried about this.....

If Mit beats Obama in the presidential election AND the economy continues to spin in the solid/positive direction then in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, the Rs will be able to point at 6-7 years of solid economic news (pre-Obama), 4 years of stagnation (Obama), and 4-12 years of solid economic news (R presidents). That could be a recipe for R control of government for many years. This long-term thought is with an assumption that the economy is going in the right direction and will continue to improve, no matter who is elected in November, 2012.

JMO.

Bear

EDIT: Important edit.....I am not implying that the bad economy is the fault of Obama. Its' source lies in many policies, decisions, and with both parties.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't necessarily agree that it will go down that way, but you raise an important point which is that there is often a significant time gap between the enactment of new policies or legislation and the actual results of those changes. This seems to be something completely absent from public discourse as people just lob bombs at whoever is in charge and say they screwed up. It’s a bit childish in my mind, like the way my kids sound when they say they are hungry and then immediately complain that there isn’t anything to eat. Jesum! Can you let me finish making dinner before you start complaining? These things take time!

This all makes it terribly difficult for us to identify “what works” and “what doesn’t” which is further compounded by the political forces that are so eager to point to this or that idea and say its terrible or great simply based on which party it came from. Shouldn’t we be actually, objectively tracking the impacts if different policies and legislation to determine, using some pre-designed measurement, if they are working?

I think another problem with this whole dynamic as it relates to the election cycle is that it pushes politicians to pursue short-term fixes rather than long-term sustainability. Because sometimes the more fiscally responsible approach will not yield benefits up front. But people are not patient and politicians want to get reelected.
 
wahday said:
Well, I think another problem with this whole dynamic as it relates to the election cycle is that it pushes politicians to pursue short-term fixes rather than long-term sustainability. Because sometimes the more fiscally responsible approach will not yield benefits up front. But people are not patient and politicians want to get reelected.
Click to expand...

THE first job of any politician is to get re-elected.
 
This is interesting stuff from another forum that I frequent, I'll have to check out the validity of it later, but wanted to post it here first, simply because of how interesting it is.

Apparently this is from one of Reagan's diaries from 2002 that's been recently released.

Although at the time I felt I could more effectively get my ideas of a collective philosophy accomplished as a Republican more so than a Democrat, I realize now that the Republican Party was indeed the party of purely individual rights, not the Democrats. When I worked as the president of the Screen Actors Guild I understood the need for people to stick together for the greater good to get their goals accomplished. I admired other great presidents of the past such as Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower who knew that in order for the nation to thrive, we must all thrive. I am also saddened that the Republican party of today thinks I wanted God in the White House and to rule the nation. That is not true at all, after I was nearly assassinated I wanted God more in my own personal life. I acknowledged that I was to be here for a reason and serve him and my nation together, but they always stayed separate in my mind just as in the Constitution. The Republican party today merely just uses God as a means to get votes, and I don’t believe Jesus would want to be used as a marketing tool. I regret my decision to become Republican and if I had to do it all over again I would have remained in the Democratic party and ran on their ticket. They seem to instill the core values I believe in, such as a collective philosophy. I thought for a while the Democrats left me, because we used to agree on so much, it turns out that I did indeed leave them, and I would do anything to take it all back. Now as I sit here as an old man, I can only imagine, “what if…”
Click to expand...

This too about W

“I just can’t bring myself to vote for that kid, I knew what he was like when I had his dad as my vice president, and I couldn’t allow for a man like that to lead the nation.”
Click to expand...

Assuming this is legit, it is very interesting stuff
 
ddomin4360 said:
This is interesting stuff from another forum that I frequent, I'll have to check out the validity of it later, but wanted to post it here first, simply because of how interesting it is.

Apparently this is from one of Reagan's diaries from 2002 that's been recently released.



This too about W



Assuming this is legit, it is very interesting stuff
Click to expand...



It's not legitimate.

According to the web site where I just found that supposed quote from Reagan's diary:

Free Wood Post said:
Satire Disclaimer
March 7, 2012
By Sarah Wood

Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.

Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience.
Click to expand...
 
It is looking like the individual mandate will be overturned. Not sure how this is going to affect the whole Affordable Healthcare Act, but it is a big blow to Obama and the Democrats. If there is no mandate, there is little value in the insurance pool. I would imagine that today, the justices will note that the whole Act shouldn't be thrown out, but the most important part looks like it might get the heave-ho.

Not sure what I think about this. I have read every article, journal, and opinion on this topic, as it effects my family tremendously... and yet I still don't know if it is better to have the Act in its entirety or not. I guess it is like Tax reform... is it better to take it a step at a time, or just make the jump completely?
 
I don't think things are as bad as they appear with the individual mandate. Obviously the Justices are skeptical about the slippery slope the individual mandate could create but it seems they recognize the importance of healthcare and it's unique market characteristics. I honestly think they'll try to find a way to make sure the mandate stands while not allowing it be applicable to other things. If they're unable to find a way to do that, it won't stand though.
 
Without the individual mandate, health care reform will never effectively be accomplished using for-profit insurers. If the individual mandate is struck down, I think we see a much more concerted push for a single payer system.
 
imaplanner said:
Without the individual mandate, health care reform will never effectively be accomplished using for-profit insurers. If the individual mandate is struck down, I think we see a much more concerted push for a single payer system.
Click to expand...

While I would like to believe that, I don't think it will happen. When the Court's decision comes down, it will be the end of healthcare reform.
 
No our political / news system isn't broken at all...

“I want to set the record straight,” Hannity said on his Fox News program. “For a few weeks we have been pursuing an interview with Mr. Zimmerman to give him a chance to tell his side of the story. Now yesterday I was contacted by an individual that we in fact believe was George Zimmerman. He reached out to me, we spoke on the phone about his case, and I agreed not to report on the contents of that conversation. That’s it.”
Click to expand...

http://www.eurweb.com/2012/04/sean-hannity-explains-george-zimmerman-phone-call/

Now this guy thinks that Hannity is a good person to talk with? Is it because Hannity has been so strongly against any call for justice, even if at some point he is convicted... which looks like sooner than later...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/11/prosecutor-to-announce-decision-on-zimmerman/?hpt=hp_c1


Why would you go to a blowhard instead of 60 minutes, Barbara Walters, Oprah? I mean seriously.
 
Probably because Fox News has been more sympathetic to Zimmerman compared to other networks. As to why Hannity in particular, who knows.
 
So, the gov. of Wisconsin strikes down their equal pay law.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...r-women-money-important-men-article-1.1059872

Interesting theory...the reason women earn less money than their male counterparts is because money is less important to them. :-|

During the press conference this same senator told the following joke:
Q. How do you fix a woman's watch?
A. You don't. The oven has a clock!
 
"I guess I'm not speaking in little enough words for you to understand."

Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell (R) in a discussion with ProgressVA Executive Director Anna Scholl, talking about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gA9e_LrpUY

"I'm a smart girl, actually. I went to the University of Virginia; I benefited from public education; I think words with multiple syllables would be just fine for me."
 
[OT][/OT]
Maister said:
So, the gov. of Wisconsin strikes down their equal pay law.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...r-women-money-important-men-article-1.1059872

Interesting theory...the reason women earn less money than their male counterparts is because money is less important to them. :-|

During the press conference this same senator told the following joke:
Q. How do you fix a woman's watch?
A. You don't. The oven has a clock!
Click to expand...

Holy smokes! He didn't really tell that joke did he?

But you know, the real reason why women are fleeing the republican party is because they really don't know much.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/...-more-familiar-with-policy-than-other-people/
 
I think the nut jobs and wackos have always been out there spouting their nonsense. It just happening out out of thw way places or quietly. With the advent of instant news that goes viral, the nuttiness gets spread throughouth the world in no time flat. That being said, if the R's aren't careful, they are going alienate and piss off enough people that their tent is going to be awfully small.

Do you think there is a connection between this debate concerning women and the rights and the throw back to the early 60's shows/movies? I'm thinking Mad Men and the most recent X-Men movie.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I think the nut jobs and wackos have always been out there spouting their nonsense. It just happening out out of thw way places or quietly. With the advent of instant news that goes viral, the nuttiness gets spread throughouth the world in no time flat. That being said, if the R's aren't careful, they are going alienate and piss off enough people that their tent is going to be awfully small.

Do you think there is a connection between this debate concerning women and the rights and the throw back to the early 60's shows/movies? I'm thinking Mad Men and the most recent X-Men movie.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's because the GOP refuses to moderate its stances on social issues that affect women. It's just more pronounced right now because it's a Presidential election year.
 
Very interesting political season:

One side of the mouth says, there should be smaller and more limited government.
Other side of mouth is saying the government should pass laws that tell us who we can marry and if we can get pregnant.
 
Republicans are trying to attribute what one low level Democrat talking head said to the stance of the entire party. It's one thing when a talking head says something, it's quite another when a Presidential candidate or elected official says something...

Anyway what she said, while poorly worded, was not really incorrect. She may be a hard working mother but Ann Romney is pretty detached from the economic realities most mothers face.
 
Blide said:
...She may be a hard working mother but Ann Romney is pretty detached from the economic realities most mothers face.
Click to expand...

Apparently the Romneys were renters while Mittens was in grad school, and they had to sell some of their stock holdings to make ends meet.

I want to see Ann's W-2s!
 
Blide said:
Republicans are trying to attribute what one low level Democrat talking head said to the stance of the entire party. It's one thing when a talking head says something, it's quite another when a Presidential candidate or elected official says something...

Anyway what she said, while poorly worded, was not really incorrect. She may be a hard working mother but Ann Romney is pretty detached from the economic realities most mothers face.
Click to expand...

Veloise said:
Apparently the Romneys were renters while Mittens was in grad school, and they had to sell some of their stock holdings to make ends meet.

I want to see Ann's W-2s!
Click to expand...

Maybe I've missed something, just what office is Ann Romney running for? Much ado about nothing.
 
ofos said:
Maybe I've missed something, just what office is Ann Romney running for? Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. While I agree this particular issue is much ado about nothing, she is putting herself out there to humanize Mitt. When she's out stumping for her husband on the campaign trail, she is inevitably going to draw criticism just as Michelle Obama does. It may not be fair or justified but what she does reflects on her husband.
 
Back
Top