SnoBrdr wrote:
Nothing like taking things out of context,
Try listening to the last line.
Yea? What line gives you the idea that's not what he meant?
For what it's worth, I thought it was a clear the Obama administration lied to get this thing through so it's not a surprise to me.
What part of " ya there are things I wish I could change but I'd rather have this law than not" don't you get?
Like many things the government does "for" us, the route taken may not be the most direct route but a lot of people are happy when they finally get there.
Right. So he did say what he meant. He wished it was different, but it's not so he lied to get the support of the American people.
As long as it's for the greater good you're okay with being misled? To each their own I suppose.
The architects of the law RELIED on the STUPIDITY of the electorate to even think of passing it. Which in and of itself is much worse than the actual lie.
They were so confident in their ability to dupe the stupid public , and so unafraid of the ramifications of their lies that they went ahead with the whole farce. In other words they have absolutely no respect or fear of the electorate.
Judging by the response of some on here they were right.
SnoBrdr wrote:
Nothing like taking things out of context,
Try listening to the last line.
Yea? What line gives you the idea that's not what he meant?
For what it's worth, I thought it was a clear the Obama administration lied to get this thing through so it's not a surprise to me.
What part of " ya there are things I wish I could change but I'd rather have this law than not" don't you get?
Like many things the government does "for" us, the route taken may not be the most direct route but a lot of people are happy when they finally get there.
Right. So he did say what he meant. He wished it was different, but it's not so he lied to get the support of the American people.
As long as it's for the greater good you're okay with being misled? To each their own I suppose.
The architects of the law RELIED on the STUPIDITY of the electorate to even think of passing it. Which in and of itself is much worse than the actual lie.
They were so confident in their ability to dupe the stupid public , and so unafraid of the ramifications of their lies that they went ahead with the whole farce. In other words they have absolutely no respect or fear of the electorate.
Judging by the response of some on here they were right.
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
Beware of fools & trolls here, they lurk everywhere.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Yea? What line gives you the idea that's not what he meant?
For what it's worth, I thought it was a clear the Obama administration lied to get this thing through so it's not a surprise to me.
What part of " ya there are things I wish I could change but I'd rather have this law than not" don't you get?
Like many things the government does "for" us, the route taken may not be the most direct route but a lot of people are happy when they finally get there.
Right. So he did say what he meant. He wished it was different, but it's not so he lied to get the support of the American people.
As long as it's for the greater good you're okay with being misled? To each their own I suppose.
The architects of the law RELIED on the STUPIDITY of the electorate to even think of passing it. Which in and of itself is much worse than the actual lie.
They were so confident in their ability to dupe the stupid public , and so unafraid of the ramifications of their lies that they went ahead with the whole farce. In other words they have absolutely no respect or fear of the electorate.
Judging by the response of some on here they were right.
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
nope, just morally bankrupt and totally corrupt...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
SnoBrdr wrote:
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
nope, just morally bankrupt and totally corrupt...
I prefer "ethically challenged".
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
The people, who are getting screwed now, voted for those in Congress. With the piss poor role out and lies, the people were dumb enough to re-elect the majority of them back into office even though they passed a bill without reading it and lied about the whole thing.
Seems like some of the people figured it out and changed a few faces in DC. Hopefully that kind of change will continue.
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
You probably meant to write "House member" rather than senator. Senators represent states without regard to population.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
You probably meant to write "House member" rather than senator. Senators represent states without regard to population.
yes, my bad... senators are 2 per state regardless of population...senators are also considered the " upper chamber" and as representatives of the state itself, further removed from the people. It is also far more difficult ( and expensive) to become a senator than it is to become a representative ( commonly referred to as congressman) Part of the reason why all spending is SUPPOSED to originate in the house...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
So one forgot to tell the people here, every statewide election went to a Democrat.
Beware of fools & trolls here, they lurk everywhere.
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
So one forgot to tell the people here, every statewide election went to a Democrat.
yin vermont? yeah no kidding...many were not even contested races... in certain pockets of the country yes... across most of the country? not so much...what's your point?
A number of races remain undecided, and the colors for these districts on the map were determined using the majority vote there as it stood at 11 a.m. on Thursday. We'll update the map as more results come in.
you can click here for interactive senate and gubernatorial results...
there are some pockets of deep blue amidst a sea of red... mass elected a republican governor and vt's race was very tight... all in all nationally there is a lot of conservative representation at the local level...representation that is less likely to endorse big govt ideology and seek to resolve issues on teh local level...Unfortunately the lure of federal money is hard to resist ( and sometimes foolish to pass on as well)when it's readily available for the taking...
so I'm stickin' with
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
SnoBrdr wrote:
But the "people" themselves didn't vote on it so it doesn't matter how "stupid" they were.
The Congress voted on it and between the actual members and their staff, I would say that they are not "stupid".
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
So one forgot to tell the people here, every statewide election went to a Democrat.
yin vermont? yeah no kidding...many were not even contested races... in certain pockets of the country yes... across most of the country? not so much...what's your point?
A number of races remain undecided, and the colors for these districts on the map were determined using the majority vote there as it stood at 11 a.m. on Thursday. We'll update the map as more results come in.
you can click here for interactive senate and gubernatorial results...
there are some pockets of deep blue amidst a sea of red... mass elected a republican governor and vt's race was very tight... all in all nationally there is a lot of conservative representation at the local level...representation that is less likely to endorse big govt ideology and seek to resolve issues on teh local level...Unfortunately the lure of federal money is hard to resist ( and sometimes foolish to pass on as well)when it's readily available for the taking...
so I'm stickin' with
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
No, not in Vt, in RI.
The home of the Master Lever for voting.
Beware of fools & trolls here, they lurk everywhere.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
So one forgot to tell the people here, every statewide election went to a Democrat.
yin vermont? yeah no kidding...many were not even contested races... in certain pockets of the country yes... across most of the country? not so much...what's your point?
A number of races remain undecided, and the colors for these districts on the map were determined using the majority vote there as it stood at 11 a.m. on Thursday. We'll update the map as more results come in.
you can click here for interactive senate and gubernatorial results...
there are some pockets of deep blue amidst a sea of red... mass elected a republican governor and vt's race was very tight... all in all nationally there is a lot of conservative representation at the local level...representation that is less likely to endorse big govt ideology and seek to resolve issues on teh local level...Unfortunately the lure of federal money is hard to resist ( and sometimes foolish to pass on as well)when it's readily available for the taking...
so I'm stickin' with
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
No, not in Vt, in RI.
The home of the Master Lever for voting.
same thing here in vt but we have to fill in the little bubbles w a #2 pencil while standing in a cardboard box...
moderation from both parties is what is needed... I'm not sure how we get there...or if we ever do...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
The people didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress voted on it by giving the president authority for military action.
Following your logic, you're okay with this even though the people were mislead because... they didn't vote on it, Congress did?
the representatives are chosen by the people to represent them. The number of state reps in the house is determined by census population... Roughly each senator represents the same number of people... if they ain't doing what the majority of their constituents want, hold em accountable...which is why the 2010 and 2014 midterms went the way they did...presidential elections attract significantly more ( potentially less interested) voters and many reps and senators ride the wave ( whichever way the tide is going) during those elections... Midterms tend to draw fewer ( potentially more interested) voters who may vote party line also but are more likely to vote party line behind their local preferred senator or representative...
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
So one forgot to tell the people here, every statewide election went to a Democrat.
yin vermont? yeah no kidding...many were not even contested races... in certain pockets of the country yes... across most of the country? not so much...what's your point?
A number of races remain undecided, and the colors for these districts on the map were determined using the majority vote there as it stood at 11 a.m. on Thursday. We'll update the map as more results come in.
you can click here for interactive senate and gubernatorial results...
there are some pockets of deep blue amidst a sea of red... mass elected a republican governor and vt's race was very tight... all in all nationally there is a lot of conservative representation at the local level...representation that is less likely to endorse big govt ideology and seek to resolve issues on teh local level...Unfortunately the lure of federal money is hard to resist ( and sometimes foolish to pass on as well)when it's readily available for the taking...
so I'm stickin' with
it has been noted elsewhere that with gridlock in the national govt , people are looking to local gov to resolve a number of issues... Good news for conservatives in that regard as local issues tend to be more closely tied to the reality of funding and issues resolved locally keep them from becoming issues at the fed level thus limiting the power of the fed by way of irrelevance and exclusion...
No, not in Vt, in RI.
The home of the Master Lever for voting.
same thing here in vt but we have to fill in the little bubbles w a #2 pencil while standing in a cardboard box...
moderation from both parties is what is needed... I'm not sure how we get there...or if we ever do...[/quote]
Here one mark or pull of the lever votes for EVERYONE in a particuliar party.
Supposed to go away next year.
Dems put up a huge fight over it.
Beware of fools & trolls here, they lurk everywhere.
One thing I worry a great deal about (and you probably worry too) is senior citizens on angel dust. They get on that dust and jump off buildings naked and such. Well good news Medicare is testing them for it. I guess it's a great way for doctors to boost their income. Everybody wins ; unless you're a tax payer .
; unless you're a tax payer 
.