Election Year Debate

[csgators]

It was a joke.

 

 

Way to go on the long reach it took to misunderstand it though. :thumbsup:

 

I got the joke, I was trying to make the point that everyone misinterprets the entire meaning of the 3/5ths law.

[Aurielius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUgaNBnchw0

 

 

Something to consider when you are in the polling booth....just what fool in Washington doesn't think this is an erosion of our rights to privacy.

[SubjectProphet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUgaNBnchw0

 

 

Something to consider when you are in the polling booth....just what fool in Washington doesn't think this is an erosion of our rights to privacy.

 

 

So, by attacking our privacy, what does the goverment gain from that? *gasp!* ILLUMINATI!

 

And that is the future headline for Youtube.

 

 

Off of my aspect here:

 

Obama- Liberal/communist/terrorist

 

Romney: No no, you misunderstood, it was a joke.

 

Gingrich: I'll TRY to change America! No promises!

 

Paul: I've run for uhhh..... however long I've ran! And STILL I haven't won yet! SO VOTE FOR ME DAMNIT!

 

 

 

That's how sad modern say politics are.

[myrmaad]

Well let's take this Bill apart, and see exactly what it's made of:

 

Ok. First let's find the actual Bill In the Thomas Locator:

“FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act,” House Resolution 658, Presented to President Obama on February 8, 2012: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.658:

Now, all the information you could want is there in Thomas but Thomas is a bit difficult to slog through. The same information is captured in a more accessible format here:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658

 

It's easy to compare the two, if you're double-checking.

 

 

H.R. 658: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

 

112th Congress, 2011–2012

 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes.

 

Introduced:

Feb 11, 2011

Sponsor:

Rep. John Mica [R-FL7]

Status:

Signed by the President

 

Here is the list of Co-sponsors (wip)

 

Cosponsors:

show cosponsors (24)

Rep. Lou Barletta [R-PA11]

Rep. Larry Bucshon [R-IN8]

Rep. Shelley Capito [R-WV2]

Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC6]

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9] ONE AND ONLY "Blue Dog" Dem in the whole list. (Not in the BD coalition supports military/war spending )

Rep. Jeff Denham [R-CA19]

Rep. Blake Farenthold [R-TX27]

Rep. Bob Gibbs [R-OH18]

Rep. Samuel “Sam” Graves [R-MO6]

Rep. Richard Hanna [R-NY24]

Rep. Randy Hultgren [R-IL14]

Rep. James Lankford [R-OK5]

Rep. Billy Long [R-MO7]

Rep. Patrick Meehan [R-PA7]

Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA42]

Rep. Thomas “Tom” Petri [R-WI6]

Rep. Tom Reed [R-NY29]

Rep. William “Bill” Shuster [R-PA9]

Rep. Steve Southerland [R-FL2]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]

Rep. Donald “Don” Young [R-AK0]

Rep. Chip Cravaack [R-MN8] (joined Feb 14, 2011)

Rep. Todd Rokita [R-IN4] (joined Feb 14, 2011)

Rep. Frank Guinta [R-NH1] (joined Mar 02, 2011)

 

 

Following this I will list the votes as I have time so check back.

 

Just for the record, you dare try to pin this on Obama? I know you think I'm stupid. :armscrossed:

 

Feb 4, 2012 – The House approved the conference report to H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, by a vote of 248 to 169

[IndorilTheGreat]

 

So, by attacking our privacy, what does the goverment gain from that? *gasp!* ILLUMINATI!

 

And that is the future headline for Youtube.

 

Admittedly, I did find the attitude of the speakers to be a little bit "conspiracyesque," but their argument holds up, nonetheless. If the government can legally watch us in public (an we know we're being watched, that is), that will lead to lots of civil unrest (yes, even more).

 

And that pretty much is the headline of the entire internet already. :rolleyes:

 

Off of my aspect here:

 

Obama- Liberal/communist/terrorist

 

Liberal? Sure, I'll buy it.

 

Communist? Ehhh.... it's debatable.

 

Terrorist? I know you have strong feelings against President Obama, but still, man. Now, before you argue that he "terrorizes" the citizens of other countries (i.e. deploys troops, declares war, etc.), it is the job of the President of the United States of America to make decisions such as these.

 

Romney: No no, you misunderstood, it was a joke.

 

Oh, Romney. You are a millionaire who is living with old ideals; which, be the way, may get you places, but not very far, which is definitely not what this country needs.

 

Gingrich: I'll TRY to change America! No promises!

 

This ^ line is pretty much what every single candidate in the history of the U.S has stated.

 

Paul: I've run for uhhh..... however long I've ran! And STILL I haven't won yet! SO VOTE FOR ME DAMNIT!

 

Again, paired with the same thing as Gingrich; except this time it's full of (or lack thereof) no promises or new ideas.

 

That's how sad modern say politics are.

 

A good friend of mine once proposed a method of presidential election; put all of the candidates in a dark room with a knife in the middle. Come back after 36 hours, and the survivor gains the Presidency.

 

I pointed out to him that no one would survive, as all of that hot air would cause them to suffocate.

 

 

Reason for edit: Fixed spelling error.

Edited May 16, 2012 by IndorilTheGreat

[grannywils]

Well let's take this Bill apart, and see exactly what it's made of:

 

Ok. First let's find the actual Bill In the Thomas Locator:

“FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act,” House Resolution 658, Presented to President Obama on February 8, 2012: http://thomas.loc.go...z?d112:h.r.658:

Now, all the information you could want is there in Thomas but Thomas is a bit difficult to slog through. The same information is captured in a more accessible format here:

 

http://www.govtrack....bills/112/hr658

 

It's easy to compare the two, if you're double-checking.

 

 

H.R. 658: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

 

112th Congress, 2011–2012

 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes.

 

Introduced:

Feb 11, 2011

Sponsor:

Rep. John Mica [R-FL7]

Status:

Signed by the President

 

Here is the list of Co-sponsors (wip)

 

Cosponsors:

show cosponsors (24)

Rep. Lou Barletta [R-PA11]

Rep. Larry Bucshon [R-IN8]

Rep. Shelley Capito [R-WV2]

Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC6]

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9] ONE AND ONLY "Blue Dog" Dem in the whole list. (Not in the BD coalition supports military/war spending )

Rep. Jeff Denham [R-CA19]

Rep. Blake Farenthold [R-TX27]

Rep. Bob Gibbs [R-OH18]

Rep. Samuel “Sam” Graves [R-MO6]

Rep. Richard Hanna [R-NY24]

Rep. Randy Hultgren [R-IL14]

Rep. James Lankford [R-OK5]

Rep. Billy Long [R-MO7]

Rep. Patrick Meehan [R-PA7]

Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA42]

Rep. Thomas “Tom” Petri [R-WI6]

Rep. Tom Reed [R-NY29]

Rep. William “Bill” Shuster [R-PA9]

Rep. Steve Southerland [R-FL2]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]

Rep. Donald “Don” Young [R-AK0]

Rep. Chip Cravaack [R-MN8] (joined Feb 14, 2011)

Rep. Todd Rokita [R-IN4] (joined Feb 14, 2011)

Rep. Frank Guinta [R-NH1] (joined Mar 02, 2011)

 

 

Following this I will list the votes as I have time so check back.

 

Just for the record, you dare try to pin this on Obama? I know you think I'm stupid. :armscrossed:

 

Feb 4, 2012 – The House approved the conference report to H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, by a vote of 248 to 169

 

 

 

 

Myr, here is the voting record link on the bill http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/38089

[SubjectProphet]

 

So, by attacking our privacy, what does the goverment gain from that? *gasp!* ILLUMINATI!

 

And that is the future headline for Youtube.

 

Admittedly, I did find the attitude of the speakers to be a little bit "conspiracyesque," but their argument holds up, nonetheless. If the government can legally watch us in public (an we know we're being watched, that is), that will lead to lots of civil unrest (yes, even more).

 

And that pretty much is the headline of the entire internet already. :rolleyes:

 

Off of my aspect here:

 

Obama- Liberal/communist/terrorist

 

Liberal? Sure, I'll buy it.

 

Communist? Ehhh.... it's debatable.

 

Terrorist? I know you have strong feelings against President Obama, but still, man. Now, before you argue that he "terrorizes" the citizens of other countries (i.e. deploys troops, declares war, etc.), it is the job of the President of the United States of America to make decisions such as these.

 

Romney: No no, you misunderstood, it was a joke.

 

Oh, Romney. You are a millionaire who is living with old ideals; which, be the way, may get you places, but not very far, which is definitely not what this country needs.

 

Gingrich: I'll TRY to change America! No promises!

 

This ^ line is pretty much what every single candidate in the history of the U.S has stated.

 

Paul: I've run for uhhh..... however long I've ran! And STILL I haven't won yet! SO VOTE FOR ME DAMNIT!

 

Again, paired with the same thing as Gingrich; except this time it's full of (or lack thereof) no promises or new ideas.

 

That's how sad modern say politics are.

 

A good friend of mine once proposed a method of presidential election; put all of the candidates in a dark room with a knife in the middle. Come back after 36 hours, and the survivor gains the Presidency.

 

I pointed out to him that no one would survive, as all of that hot air would cause them to suffocate.

 

 

Reason for edit: Fixed spelling error.

 

 

Yeah, sorry, terrorist was WAAAY over the line. If Obama were a terrorist, I would be too because I serve his orders.

 

I'd laugh to see which candidate survived that. All of them look like they'd just spin in circles, waiting to see who takes the first move.

[myrmaad]

Isn't he your Commander-in-Chief?

 

While I never liked Reagan's politics, I was fond of him personally, and inexplicably.

 

However I never liked George HW Bush, because I was watching the Ollie North hearings while he was still VP, and during his testimony he looked directly into the camera and "lied to my face" I knew he was lying and he knew he was lying. I saw the lie.

 

That doesn't usually happen on camera, but you may be able to relate to instances in real life where you could look into their eyes and see your friend is lying to you.

 

In fact I told my little 5 year old grandnephew "look into my eyes and tell me that lie so I can see it" when he was going through his fib phase. He knew I could see it, because small children have a gift for seeing clearly, too.

 

While George HW Bush was my Commander-In-Chief I never said a bad word about him in public.

 

I find that once bad presidents leave office I tend to soften toward them. They put their pants on one leg at a time.

 

 

***

Grannywils, thanks for posting the link to the vote record. Obama has tried from the beginning to be "a Uniter, not a Divider". I tend to have some very liberal views so this doesn't sit well with me. I think the Dems fell in line under their President when George W Bush was President, and I think the Republicans should have to do the same, or suffer the consequences for obstructing the presidential mandate.

 

But if we (obviously) don't have to do that, then I think the Dems need to stop cooperating altogether. What's good for the ganders is good for the geese.

 

If people are mad, which they often say they are when interviewed on the street, because "congress doesn't get anything done" then they should vote straight tickets.

 

In my opinion it's better to have no legislation than bad legislation, so I'm all for them doing nothing, if they can't get it right.

 

 

 

'PS -- My point in looking at the sponsors and the voters of that Bill, in case you weren't sure, is that a Republican President would have most certainly signed it as well. Absolutely no question. It is a Republican sponsored bill.

 

And the fact that Obama signed it, should lay to rest any fears that he is "liberal".

[grannywils]

Myrmaad, you bring up some interesting points in your last couple of paragraphs. I have been and continue albeit somewhat reluctantly to be an Obama supporter. My biggest gripe of late is his continuing attempt to be a "Uniter, not a Divider" in an atmosphere where it is getting him and us absolutely nowhere. I am beginning to agree with your thesis regarding the straight ticket, although it has never been my habit to vote this way. It has just become so frustrating in this day and age that one wonders what else to do, at least in the national elections.

 

I have been attempting to post an article I read which puts a slightly different light on some of the spin we hear from the right on how badly Mr. Obama has handled the economy and how he has been responsible for all of our problems, yada, yada, yada. However, I am unable to include the charts and graphs when I attempt to copy the article, so here is a link for any who are interested. I recommend it, as it is most enlightening for both sides. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/republicans-trashing-the-obama-recovery.html

 

 

[Aurielius]

Myrmaad, you bring up some interesting points in your last couple of paragraphs. I have been and continue albeit somewhat reluctantly to be an Obama supporter. My biggest gripe of late is his continuing attempt to be a "Uniter, not a Divider" in an atmosphere where it is getting him and us absolutely nowhere. I am beginning to agree with your thesis regarding the straight ticket, although it has never been my habit to vote this way. It has just become so frustrating in this day and age that one wonders what else to do, at least in the national elections.

 

I have been attempting to post an article I read which puts a slightly different light on some of the spin we hear from the right on how badly Mr. Obama has handled the economy and how he has been responsible for all of our problems, yada, yada, yada. However, I am unable to include the charts and graphs when I attempt to copy the article, so here is a link for any who are interested. I recommend it, as it is most enlightening for both sides. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/republicans-trashing-the-obama-recovery.html

"His continuing attempt to a be a Uniter"..dear god so that is what you all someone who pits one sector of the population against the other? This campaign bears no resemblance to a unification theme, largely due to the fact that his ACTUAL record is something that he can't run on. Vice President Biden "They don't get us", no we don't get you Joe...you having been living off the taxpayer dime your entire life as career politician and who by the way has a million dollar home in my state..not his. This country of roughly 350 Million has over 3 million people whose net worth exceeds a million, out of that roughly 44% inherited it the other 56% EARNED it. These filthy capitalists pay 40% of the taxes whereas almost 49% of the great unwashed pay NOTHING. The level of BS in this campaign requires even higher hip waders than usual. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hold assets worth between nearly $2.6 million and nearly $8.3 million, according to financial disclosure reports released by the White House. Us versus them? To quote Pogo "We have met the enemy and they are us", to say that the administration's campaign is disingenuous is an understatement. (Tax stats from Forbes)

Edited May 18, 2012 by Aurielius