The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I've been saying this for years....not only KRMG but also their sponsors. Trash them all. What goes around comes around...

Quote
How do you find out? Use a site called fccinfo.com, which accesses FCC records. Punch in the call letters, click on the callsign, and then scroll down to the box marked "Licensee Information." If it says "CC Licenses" or "AMFM" or "Capstar," with an address in Tulsa or San Antonio, you're looking at Clear Channel. If it says "Radio License Holdings" or "Citadel" with an address in Las Vegas or Atlanta, it's really Cumulus. But if it's a local address, you're in luck. Your station is a prime target to be de-Rushed.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070410/-How-to-take-action-against-Limbaugh-at-the-local-level?via=siderecent

You realize these haters who broadcast hurt America and hurt our town's image?


http://www.krmg.com/lsp/ads/

3 Pepsi/Tu (Mt. Dew)                                     
1dp Cecil & Sons
3 Don Carlton Acura
Mini News Rotator
Krmg Top Of The Hour
3 Burgraf Restoration
Krmg - Quick Dry Legalid
4 Mullin Plumbing
1rc Ok Heart All Your Nee
3 Ireland's
1dp Cecil & Sons
3 Don Carlton Acura
Mini News Rotator
Krmg Top Of The Hour
3 Burgraf Restoration
Krmg - Quick Dry Legalid
4 Mullin Plumbing
1rc Ok Heart All Your Nee
3 Ireland's
1as Bonide
1rc Home Value Protection
Krmg Image/Attitude
3 Winning Our Future
1dm Don Carton Honda
1dp Sea Minerals
Krmg Image/Attitude
Weather Bed
3 Hp Hood-Heluva Good
3 U.S. Cellular
3 Don Carlton Acura
Mini News Rotator
Krmg Top Of The Hour
3 Ireland's
1rc Ok Heart All Your Nee
Krmg - Quick Dry Legalid
1 Mutual Fund Show
Krmg :30 Promo Rotator
2rlj-Tag Bonefish Grill
3 Winning Our Future
1 Mutual Fund Show
3 Home Builders Associati
Krmg :30 Promo Rotator
Krmg Bottom Of The Hour
1dm Don Carton Honda
1 Moody's Jewelry
1 Mutual Fund Show
Krmg Image/Attitude
Weather Bed
3cs Cox Radio Babyfest
4 Mulling Plumbing
Krmg Image/Attitude
4 The Perfect Touch
1 Mullin Plumbing
Krmg Am Drive :30 Rotato
Krmg Bottom Of The Hour
1 Lighting Inc.
3dp Mullin_better Built S
3 Winning Our Future
2rlj-Tag Bonefish Grill
1jk Mullin_mother's Natu
Krmg Image/Attitude
Weather Bed
3 Hardgrave Builders
3bb Cox Radio Sales - Tak
1dp Cecil & Sons
Mini News Rotator
Krmg Top Of The Hour
3 Ibm/Prem

I will be getting rid of my car because I will no longer let Don Carlton service my needs as long as they support Rush. Also, Bonefish Grill sucks....These other yahoo sponsors I'd already identified and black listed. YOU SHOULD TOO! more exposure of advertisers who divide our country to come....please help list advertisers on KRMG here and get the word out.
DO NOT CATER TO HATE AGAINST YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS!

I appreciate knowing what particular advertisers select that time period or program to place their advertising. But that is ALL they are doing is placing their advertising to reach a nameless demographic. It would be erroneous, and I think, just as foolish to assume that they believe in the content of that program unless they pointedly include that in their messaging. It is a good tactic to catch the attention of an advertiser with a boycott in order to hurt the program but that works both ways. Most advertisers know that, try to stay non political and are hard to bump off of effective advertising.

Just want to make the point that there is a difference between a business that champions the cause of a program by aggressively following the program no matter what its effectiveness might be (a ditto head advertiser) vs. one that merely is trying to reach white, middle aged, fat guys who don't like college educated, uppity women, pointy headed liberals etc. ;)

What do the numbers in front of the advertiser mean?

It may be the number of "spots".

I don't catch your drift, AM. Hate speech is adding to the classlessness of our great Country. This divisiveness needs to be halted.

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/one-million-moms-toys-r-us-archie-comics_n_1307689.html

just another example of going backwards...

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/Y/R/4/Culture-War.jpg)

There was a time when spewing hate on the airwaves was prohibited.....then the haters bought the stations.

 ::)

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 03, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
I've been saying this for years....not only KRMG but also their sponsors. Trash them all. What goes around comes around...

You realize these haters who broadcast hurt America and hurt our town's image?

..........




I will be getting rid of my car because I will no longer let Don Carlton service my needs as long as they support Rush. Also, Bonefish Grill sucks....These other yahoo sponsors I'd already identified and black listed. YOU SHOULD TOO! more exposure of advertisers who divide our country to come....please help list advertisers on KRMG here and get the word out.
DO NOT CATER TO HATE AGAINST YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS!

What an idiotic idea.

Quote from: Quinton on March 03, 2012, 03:53:18 PM
::)

What, you think people who don't like misogynist drug addicted pricks known for engaging in sex tourism who can't even understand the concept of how birth control pills work or how insurance works should support misogynist drug addicted pricks known for engaging in sex tourism who can't even understand the concept of how birth control pills work or how insurance works? Or is it that people who don't like misogynist drug addicted pricks known for engaging in sex tourism should just sit down and shut up and let them take over the country's discourse?

Although if Rush and his Republican buddies leaping to his defense really want to keep making birth control an issue in the coming election I guess I shouldn't complain too loudly. The country is firmly on the other side of that particular issue, after all.

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 03, 2012, 03:14:28 PM
It may be the number of "spots".

I don't catch your drift, AM. Hate speech is adding to the classlessness of our great Country. This divisiveness needs to be halted.

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/one-million-moms-toys-r-us-archie-comics_n_1307689.html

just another example of going backwards...

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/Y/R/4/Culture-War.jpg)

There was a time when spewing hate on the airwaves was prohibited.....then the haters bought the stations.

Take Pepsi for instance. Pepsi sees its product as appealing to many different sets of consumers. They don't just advertise on conservative talk radio shows. They look for listeners, readership, consumer patterns and then advertise in those media. KRMG apparently has a strong following and represents potential Pepsi buyers at an affordable cost. It would take loads of negative boycott activity to knock them off a high rated program time slot. Even then Coca Cola would jump right in and probably pay less to reach those same people who may in turn boycott Pepsi. Smart companies don't play those games, they don't choose sides. For instance, Nelson Nissan used to advertise solely using OSU themes, as I gather he is an OSU fan, but found out it incensed TU and OU fans. They saw that and changed their ads. Meanwhile, KRMG isn't leading Tulsans to their station by carrying Rush, they are capitalizing on an existing density of Rush type listeners. Frightening isn't it?

I like Pepsi, nonetheless, if I saw Pepsi start to utilize Rush or his negative tone in their advertising, I would immediately drop the product from my list of preferred soft drinks. I hope Pepsi, Carlton et al starts to do research on their buyers and realizes that we think less of them for advertising on lunatic radio shows.

I do agree with you that it is a powerful tactic but should be focussed on KRMG, not their product advertisers. Once the bad press and the declining ratings start to impact the station's revenue, you can bet they'll adjust their programming.

The local advertiser are paying KRMG for their airtime, they are not paying Limbaugh. KRMG use the money from local advertisers to pay for the program. Boycot the station not the advertisers.

Quote from: AquaMan on March 03, 2012, 04:24:58 PM
I do agree with you that it is a powerful tactic but should be focussed on KRMG, not their product advertisers. Once the bad press and the declining ratings start to impact the station's revenue, you can bet they'll adjust their programming.

Why should it not be focused on the advertisers? They are, after all, the ones paying KRMG's bills. Get enough of them to tell KRMG not to run their ads during the misogynist prick's show and they'll drop the show because they can't sell enough ads to pay for it.

There is one issue with all this, though. The extreme focus on Limbaugh is letting those who expressed their support for his comments off the hook. The best Romney (the supposed moderate) could do was say "that's not the language I would have used." Remember, this is a guy Limbaugh said wasn't a "real conservative." Despite that, he still refuses to express his disapproval. Santorum said Limbaugh was "being absurd" and let him off the hook by saying he's just "an entertainer."

Perhaps some of you are old enough or familiar enough with history to remember how JFK caught a lot of flak for being Catholic. Supposedly he was going to be beholden to the Pope or something. Well, this field of yahoos is actually beholden to Limbaugh, not just theoretically, but they show it with every statement they make about him. A few called out his racist remarks about Obama in 2008, but then went back and apologized. It reminded me of Cheney getting an apology from the guy he shot in the face.

Nathan, this city loves the guy like they love Inhofe. Those who don't often sympathize with his views but not his methods or they call him "entertainment".  Advertisers know that. What you and TT propose is changing the direction of the lead dog by pulling on the tails of the rest of the pack.

If you can find enough passionate, fearless people to stand up and fight like they did against the Komen foundation, then I would indeed be very proud of Tulsa. I'm doubtful that would happen.

I can't stand Rush, but I like many other people on the station. I just talked to Joe Kelley a few minutes ago after driving by Don Carlton Honda. I didn't see any reason to fling eggs at either one of them because I don't like Rush

Quote from: sgrizzle on March 03, 2012, 05:00:18 PM
I can't stand Rush, but I like many other people on the station. I just talked to Joe Kelley a few minutes ago after driving by Don Carlton Honda. I didn't see any reason to fling eggs at either one of them because I don't like Rush

I don't think anybody is talking about flinging eggs. But given a choice between, say, car dealers, I'll pick the one that doesn't have their ads run during Limbaugh's show. Just like given a choice between fast food restaurants I don't pick Chick-Fil-A, despite it being quite agreeable to my palate. I hope they'll someday stop being strong financial supporters of anti-gay bigotry.

Advocating conservatism and conservatives in the political sphere is one thing. I'm not going to stop patronizing a business because they give money to Republicans. I am, however, emphatically not OK with my money supporting misogyny and discrimination, so I choose not to patronize businesses that lend their financial support to such shenanigans (when I am aware of it and have a choice, anyway).

Being a free country, everyone else is welcome to make their own decisions on this sort of thing.

Rush must be feeling the heat from his advertisers.   He issued an apology to Ms. Fluke today. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/03/us-usa-contraception-limbaugh-idUSTRE8220T220120303

Rush Limbaugh apologizes to law student for "insulting" comments

(Reuters) - Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, facing heavy criticism for branding a law student a "slut" over her remarks on President Barack Obama's new policy on contraception, apologized on Saturday.

The furor prompted Obama to call the Georgetown University student, Sandra Fluke, on Friday to express his support.

"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," Limbaugh said in a written statement. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Yeah, he apologizes for the word choices, but not the sentiments the words conveyed.

If you use birth control you are a slut... how many kids does Rush have?

Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 03, 2012, 07:27:22 PM
If you use birth control you are a slut... how many kids does Rush have?

Sex can't be easy after nice dinner with a side of a bakers dozen Oxycontins swilled down with a scotch.

Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 03, 2012, 07:27:22 PM
If you use birth control you are a slut... how many kids does Rush have?

The world is breathlessly hoping none!

What about the names people like Bill Mar called Sarah Palin & her childern? No one ever apologized to her or her kids, Sarah Palin was and still  is called every name in the book from the "S" word to the "C" word and everything inbetween by the liberals.... Many liberal left "entertainers" said some very nasty things about Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and even Laura Ingrham.  It's all a one way street. Laura Ingrham was called the "S" word and she is still waiting for a apology. No one calls them out for it. The Sponsors should of dropped Bill Mar long ago. >:(

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 06, 2012, 03:20:09 PM
What about the names people like Bill Mar called Sarah Palin & her childern? No one ever apologized to her or her kids, Sarah Palin was and still  is called every name in the book from the "S" word to the "C" word and everything inbetween by the liberals.... Many liberal left "entertainers" said some very nasty things about Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and even Laura Ingrham.  It's all a one way street. Laura Ingrham was called the "S" word and she is still waiting for a apology. No one calls them out for it. The Sponsors should of dropped Bill Mar long ago. >:(

There's a difference, cabbage.

Sarah, Bachmann, Ingraham, RushContin are all public figures and should at the very least expect it.  Doesn't mean it's right.

This other young woman however, didn't ask for nor deserved it.

And guess what, doofus?  Bill 'Mar' (Maher) has his show on HBO.  He has NO sponsors or advertisers.  You cannot be that dense.

Quote from: Hoss on March 06, 2012, 03:36:30 PM
There's a difference, cabbage.

Sarah, Bachmann, Ingraham, RushContin are all public figures and should at the very least expect it.  Doesn't mean it's right.

This other young woman however, didn't ask for nor deserved it.

And guess what, doofus?  Bill 'Mar' (Maher) has his show on HBO.  He has NO sponsors or advertisers.  You cannot be that dense.

They're entertainers.  They put on an act hoping to be called names.  They make more money that way.

Quote from: Hoss on March 06, 2012, 03:36:30 PM
There's a difference, cabbage.

Sarah, Bachmann, Ingraham, RushContin are all public figures and should at the very least expect it.  Doesn't mean it's right.

This other young woman however, didn't ask for nor deserved it.

And guess what, doofus?  Bill 'Mar' (Maher) has his show on HBO.  He has NO sponsors or advertisers.  You cannot be that dense.

Sarah Palin is now a private person she holds no office- and what about the names her children have been called by tolerant liberals- Even at that, some of the names like the "C" word is way over the line for any person public or private. No person should be attacked and called some of the names they have been called only because of their viewpoints. Laura Ingram just gives her viewpoints and she is attacked for that.

Quote from: Hoss on March 06, 2012, 03:36:30 PM
There's a difference, cabbage.

Sarah, Bachmann, Ingraham, RushContin are all public figures and should at the very least expect it.  Doesn't mean it's right.

This other young woman however, didn't ask for nor deserved it.

And guess what, doofus?  Bill 'Mar' (Maher) has his show on HBO.  He has NO sponsors or advertisers.  You cannot be that dense.

Dude, I might be wrong, but I think your little quote is kind of funny. Again I could be wrong, but I think early English Conservative were decidedly more in line with modern day liberals/socialists. They believed in devine rule/monarchy and social cooperation for the betterment of everyone and such. So in fact your quote is calling libs idiots.

Funny stuff.

Oh, and you arguments carry little weight when peppered with name calling.

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 06, 2012, 03:50:33 PM
Sarah Palin is now a private person she holds no office- and what about the names her children have been called by tolerant liberals- Even at that, some of the names like the "C" word is way over the line for any person public or private. No person should be attacked and called some of the names they have been called only because of their viewpoints. Laura Ingram just gives her viewpoints and she is attacked for that.

They've made a lot of money getting called names.  Palin's oldest is getting her own show.

Palin and Ingram make money attacking people and getting attacked.  They'll be fine.

Quote from: erfalf on March 06, 2012, 03:52:01 PM
Dude, I might be wrong, but I think your little quote is kind of funny. Again I could be wrong, but I think early English Conservative were decidedly more in line with modern day liberals/socialists. They believed in devine rule/monarchy and social cooperation for the betterment of everyone and such. So in fact your quote is calling libs idiots.

Funny stuff.

Actually, you are wrong.  Conservatives are conservative throughout the ages.  Which party aligns themselves as conservatives does change it would seem.

You strike me as conservative.

;D

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 06, 2012, 03:50:33 PM
Sarah Palin is now a private person she holds no office- and what about the names her children have been called by tolerant liberals- .

Quite a dream world you are living in there... Palin is a private person!  LOL!  I laughed out loud when I read that.  Then wondered what kind of weed was being smoked at your house?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2012, 09:28:20 PM
Quite a dream world you are living in there... Palin is a private person!  LOL!  I laughed out loud when I read that.  Then wondered what kind of weed was being smoked at your house?

No kidding.  I guess cabbage may need to go to the library now to watch the tubes.  She's on TV now almost more than she was during the campaign.

If you decide to make your name public, then go on a book tour, your life by no means is private anymore.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2012, 09:28:20 PM
Quite a dream world you are living in there... Palin is a private person!  LOL!  I laughed out loud when I read that.  Then wondered what kind of weed was being smoked at your house?

No weed at his house.   He is just naturally thick between the ears.   You can argue with logic all you want with sauerkraut but you might as well be arguing with a brick. 

Quote from: swake on March 03, 2012, 07:40:04 PM
Sex can't be easy after nice dinner with a side of a bakers dozen Oxycontins swilled down with a scotch.

Only with insurance provided Viagra...

Quote from: GG on March 06, 2012, 10:00:39 PM
No weed at his house.   He is just naturally thick between the ears.   You can argue with logic all you want with sauerkraut but you might as well be arguing with a brick. 

Yeah, I know...if brains were dynamite, he couldn't blow his nose!

(Uh-oh...personal attack alert!)

Quote from: Hoss on March 06, 2012, 09:55:02 PM
If you decide to make your name public, then go on a book tour, your life by no means is private anymore.

I don't believe the book tour is a requirement.

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 06, 2012, 10:56:08 PM
I don't believe the book tour is a requirement.

No but it's making a point.  Plus she has her gig with Fox News, so there's that going for her.

The victim here gets to sue Rushbo and his army of stations for liable and emotional distress with damages which are difficult to quantify, but there's lots of legal experts willing to take her case pro bono....

What about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt and saying she should suck his d*ck and calling her a dumb tw*t. These are filthy things and Obama is in bed directly with this nasty piece of trash of a human being . There is a special place for Bill Maher in Hell he will burn right next to Satan himself.

The radical left/liberal socialists never apologize to Americans.  It time to stop the double standard, not cave to it like you..

Quote from: zstyles on March 07, 2012, 01:03:32 PM
What about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt and saying she should suck his d*ck and calling her a dumb tw*t. These are filthy things and Obama is in bed directly with this nasty piece of trash of a human being . There is a special place for Bill Maher in Hell he will burn right next to Satan himself.

The radical left/liberal socialists never apologize to Americans.  It time to stop the double standard, not cave to it like you..

Take a step back....Sarah is a celebrity politician. Not some college woman testifying on behalf of woman's constitutional and human rights. Bill Maher speaks the truth....get over it.

Some of us prefer to side with the devil....especially when the alternative community is comprised of superstitious minds, selfish values, and fraidy cats bent on destroying our freedom. :)

Quote from: zstyles on March 07, 2012, 01:03:32 PM
What about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt and saying she should suck his d*ck and calling her a dumb tw*t. These are filthy things and Obama is in bed directly with this nasty piece of trash of a human being . There is a special place for Bill Maher in Hell he will burn right next to Satan himself.

The radical left/liberal socialists never apologize to Americans.  It time to stop the double standard, not cave to it like you..

You're too civil T. This is the manner the far right understands:

So, you're equating a foul mouthed comedian, similar to most standups on cable, who has no sponsors, on a pay channel commenting about a prevaricating, ambitious, slow witted, self serving politician (and a bad one at that) to a blowhard radio talk show political operative who solicits advertisers (and prostitutes and drug dealers) while attacking a non celebrity law student and uses the cover up that he's just a comedian? To be consistent you should at least reserve a special place next to Satan for Rush.

The radical right/conservative fascists should apologize to Americans but never will. Its time to expose them rather than follow like sheep!

Quote from: AquaMan on March 07, 2012, 01:15:30 PM
The radical right/conservative fascists should apologize to Americans but never will. Its time to expose them rather than follow like sheep!

Their parents should apologize as well.

Quote from: zstyles on March 07, 2012, 01:03:32 PM
What about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt and saying she should suck his d*ck and calling her a dumb tw*t. These are filthy things and Obama is in bed directly with this nasty piece of trash of a human being . There is a special place for Bill Maher in Hell he will burn right next to Satan himself.

The radical left/liberal socialists never apologize to Americans.  It time to stop the double standard, not cave to it like you..

And he then jumps behind the veil of "entertainer" - just exactly the way Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Levine, Drudge,....well you get the idea.  Where is your indignation for them?  (Picture me with hand cupped behind my ear to enhance the hearing - searching the wind for any noise other than the chirping of crickets...)

What was that about double standard?

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 07, 2012, 01:08:06 PM
Take a step back....Sarah is a celebrity politician. Not some college woman testifying on behalf of woman's constitutional and human rights. Bill Maher speaks the truth....get over it.

Have you no decency?  That's pathetic and beneath anyone serious about public discourse and the debate of ideas.  No politician or commentator should be subjected to the kinds of personal insults and derrogatory remarks Mahar, and others, have used about Palin and other conservative/Republican females.

Second, this lady was not some annonomous person picked out of a crowd.  She is a political activist who voluntarily elected to testify in a very public and very political hearing on a highly politicized issue.  The insult was wrong because it was wrong, not because it's ok to hurl vile insults only at female office holders or entertainers.

Third, not one person on here trying to rationalize the comments by Mahar and others would defend Rush referring to Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi as a "cu**" or "slut" as ok because they are public figures.

Quote from: DTowner on March 07, 2012, 01:56:23 PM
Have you no decency?  That's pathetic and beneath anyone serious about public discourse and the debate of ideas.  No politician or commentator should be subjected to the kinds of personal insults and derrogatory remarks Mahar, and others, have used about Palin and other conservative/Republican females.

Second, this lady was not some annonomous person picked out of a crowd.  She is a political activist who voluntarily elected to testify in a very public and very political hearing on a highly politicized issue.  The insult was wrong because it was wrong, not because it's ok to hurl vile insults only at female office holders or entertainers.

Third, not one person on here trying to rationalize the comments by Mahar and others would defend Rush referring to Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi as a "cu**" or "slut" as ok because they are public figures.

Everyone tries to justify everything with "well, so and so did it too". Well, in most cases both are wrong. In this case anyone that uses language like this is inappropriate. Of course that is my own opinion. Some might not hold the same values I do and think it is perfectly fine. Some will choose to forgive, some won't. Should Rush's show be shut down? Well that's a decision his boss will have to make. The only thing I can do is decide whether or not to listen. And all this talk of Boycotting is just like everything else Congress does. They never stop to think how their actions have equal and sometimes bigger reactions. Those that do boycott Rush more than likely will miss out on millions of listeners every day. Again, a decision they will have to make.

It seems like today every discussion is a "well he did this, but he did that" back and forth, when all that needed to be said was "he was wrong". That's it.

Bill Maher stands outside the bubble of disinformation. Those other clowns you list do not. They lie constantly and Americans tend to believe their propaganda for the righties. Demonize Bill Maher because we progressives just laugh at it.

Be sure to watch "Game Change" on HBO this coming week and you'll understand more about bad politics and the white men that rule the decision making. Maybe you'll grasp onto why Sarah is fair game for the cult of personality crowd as opposed to the assassination of a woman's character testifying before our government in a man's world.

HUGE difference. ::)

BASED ON FACTS!

Here alf:





Get the picture?

Bill Maher: Dems Should Accept Limbaugh's Apology
The late-night comedian says liberals look bad for not moving on.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/03/02/sandra_fluke_vs_rush_limbaugh_boehner_calls_comments_inapropriate_.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/03/02/sandra_fluke_vs_rush_limbaugh_boehner_calls_comments_inapropriate_.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow)

QuoteUPDATE: The number of advertisers who are running away from Rush Limbaugh continues to climb, but the conservative talk show host found some support from an unlikely source this week: Bill Maher.

The late night comedian took to Twitter to tell his fellow liberals to accept Limbaugh's apology and move on: "Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout"

Of course, as CBS News reminds us, Maher is no stranger to controversy himself. Earlier this year the comedian faced a boycott for a controversial tweet about Denver Broncos QB Tim Tebow.

Maher made headlines earlier this year when he pledged $1 million to the super PAC backing President Obama's re-election.

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 07, 2012, 03:29:08 PM
Here alf:

Get the picture?

So because one man, Issa, held a hearing with leaders of the predominantly catholic organizations (which happen to be most all male, it is what it is) were heard and no women were asked to testify, republicans/conservatives hate all types of people except white males.

Yep I get it, you win.

Quote from: erfalf on March 07, 2012, 04:59:15 PM
So because one man, Issa, held a hearing with leaders of the predominantly catholic organizations (which happen to be most all male, it is what it is), republicans/conservatives hate all types of people except white males.

Yep I get it, you win.

Hate is certainly a strong word.

Quote from: erfalf on March 07, 2012, 04:59:15 PM
So because one man, Issa, held a hearing with leaders of the predominantly catholic organizations (which happen to be most all male, it is what it is) were heard and no women were asked to testify, republicans/conservatives hate all types of people except white males.

Yep I get it, you win.

A very liberal coworkers of mine commented on the recent visit by Herman Cain and JC Watts by saying they were both "a couple of uncle tom ni@@ers."

My wife is from a town in Louisiana where whites are the minority and sometimes treated as such.

An ex-acquaintance of mine was a very liberal native American. He hated all white males, although he married a white woman.

Saying racism belongs to one party or ethnic group is nothing but propaganda.

Quote from: sgrizzle on March 08, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
A very liberal coworkers of mine commented on the recent visit by Herman Cain and JC Watts by saying they were both "a couple of uncle tom ni@@ers."

My wife is from a town in Louisiana where whites are the minority and sometimes treated as such.

An ex-acquaintance of mine was a very liberal native American. He hated all white males, although he married a white woman.

Saying racism belongs to one party or ethnic group is nothing but propaganda.

But saying one party or ethnic group puts it out on display more prominently likely isn't.  Does that mean I think you are a racist, Scott?  Surely not.  But members of your party aren't helping these days.  Much like the Democrats in the South during the civil rights movement.

Quote from: sgrizzle on March 08, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
A very liberal coworkers of mine commented on the recent visit by Herman Cain and JC Watts by saying they were both "a couple of uncle tom ni@@ers."

My wife is from a town in Louisiana where whites are the minority and sometimes treated as such.

An ex-acquaintance of mine was a very liberal native American. He hated all white males, although he married a white woman.

Saying racism belongs to one party or ethnic group is nothing but propaganda.

Agreed, I always tell everyone that stupidity/racism/intollerence/hate cuts through both sides pretty equally. I just found the video comical. A bunch of lefties spewing some of the most hateful things, telling all the righties how hateful they are. Are you kidding me.

I still don't understand how this perception that the Republicans are only for rich white people got started. I mean, do people read anymore. And last I checked the republican party is made up of a lot more than just rich white guys. For that matter I would estimate that a majority aren't even white, let alone white men. Isn't it crazy how these perceptions get started. In fact believe it or not, there are women (real women) that believe that contraception should not be used. CRAZY. The great thing is, is that a conservative just won't buy it. Oh the hate.

Quote from: erfalf on March 08, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
Agreed, I always tell everyone that stupidity/racism/intollerence/hate cuts through both sides pretty equally. I just found the video comical. A bunch of lefties spewing some of the most hateful things, telling all the righties how hateful they are. Are you kidding me.

I still don't understand how this perception that the Republicans are only for rich white people got started. I mean, do people read anymore. And last I checked the republican party is made up of a lot more than just rich white guys. For that matter I would estimate that a majority aren't even white, let alone white men. Isn't it crazy how these perceptions get started. In fact believe it or not, there are women (real women) that believe that contraception should not be used. CRAZY. The great thing is, is that a conservative just won't buy it. Oh the hate.

But the appearance of them is that they capitulate to the wants of the well off.  Where do you think that all got started?  Do I know that there are more than just rich white guys in the Republican party?  Sure I do.  But do those rich people give the impression that they are pulling the strings in the party?

They do.

Perception.  It's a bi**h.

Quote from: Hoss on March 08, 2012, 10:38:53 AM
But saying one party or ethnic group puts it out on display more prominently likely isn't.  Does that mean I think you are a racist, Scott?  Surely not.  But members of your party aren't helping these days.  Much like the Democrats in the South during the civil rights movement.

I'm a white republican south tulsa southern baptist. Loud morons claim to speak for me from every angle.

Quote from: sgrizzle on March 08, 2012, 11:23:00 AM
I'm a white republican south tulsa southern baptist. Loud morons claim to speak for me from every angle.

If you hadn't threatened to raise taxes you could've been one of the loud morons.

Alf, I won't engage in personal attacks. Please back up your demographic touting because you seem to be wrong. The GOP/Teabagger party is mainly white men. But prove it's not. Ok? At least you are a consistent with the party that spews such lies.

Here, attack KO !!!!



desperate false equivalencies! THIS MEANS YOU!

Quote from: erfalf on March 08, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
And last I checked the republican party is made up of a lot more than just rich white guys. For that matter I would estimate that a majority aren't even white, let alone white men.

A fascinating 2008 article on demographic changes in political views over time...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_incredible_shrinking_repub.html

Married individuals still make up a large majority of the electorate, whites are still close to 80 percent of the electorate, and Christians are still over 80 percent of the electorate. However, the combined impact of the changes illustrated in Figure 1 has been enormous. Married white Christians have gone from close to 80 percent of the electorate in the 1950s to just over 40 percent of the electorate in the first decade of the 21st century. Moreover, the data displayed in Figure 2 show that the decline in married white Christians has been even more drastic among younger Americans. The proportion of married white Christians among voters under the age of 30 has plummeted from almost 80 percent in the 1950s to less than 20 percent in the first decade of the 21st century.

(I can't figure out how to load images)

These changes in the social composition of the American electorate are politically significant because married white Christians now constitute the core of the Republican electoral coalition. Not only are married white Christians more likely to support the GOP than other Americans, but, as the data displayed in Figure 3 show, the gap between these two groups has widened from less than 10 percentage points in the 1950s to 25 percentage points in the first decade of the 21st century.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 08, 2012, 12:43:38 PM


(I can't figure out how to load images)

Because your job is keeping us clean, which you do on a grand scale, I'm not about to teach you how to dirty things up. Besides, loaded images was my big deal back in the 60's and 70's before Al Gore's internet divided the community of man.

(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s320x320/418333_274726392601410_126894987384552_631429_765459867_n.jpg)

Quote from: erfalf on March 07, 2012, 04:59:15 PM
So because one man, Issa, held a hearing with leaders of the predominantly catholic organizations (which happen to be most all male, it is what it is) were heard and no women were asked to testify, republicans/conservatives hate all types of people except white males.

I don't think anybody said Issa or anybody else "hates" women? It is rather illustrative that Issa would call a bunch of men and no women to talk about women's health issues. Not of hate, but of complete ignorance of gender issues.

Maybe it's just me, but the qualitative difference between the video of Schulz, Olbermann, and Maher is that they didn't spend 10 minutes hurling epithets and then go back the next day to do it again. A difference of degree, perhaps, but still a pretty important one. One indicates a poor choice of words. The other indicates a poor choice of ideas. (to me; feel free to disagree)

So can we drop the whole Ms. Fluke is not a public figure argument. If I had to guess, she probably believes that the Rush comment is the greatest thing that ever happened to her, ie the ends justify the means.

While we're at it, let's drop the whole "war on women" meme as well. It is dishonest. First, it could be argued that in many cases it is just as much a war on men('s pocketbooks). The whole arguments centers around who pays for it not whether or not you can get it. Second, if it was a war on women, I would have to assume that no women are left in the republican party. Or are republican women the equivalent of what liberals would call an uncle tom? Completely ridiculous.

The thing that baffles me about liberals, at least the ones on MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS, is they don't believe in free will. If you are a woman, you should think this way, a black this way, hispanic, asian, tall, short, the list goes on.

Who is the racist again? Who is coming up with the perception? You, or do you just take the bait, hook, line & sinker?

Ok, rant over for today.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 07:06:18 AM
The thing that baffles me about liberals...

The one thing that baffles me about conservatives is that they believe that they decide everything. They know how everybody else feels about everything and what they should do or say.

You or no one else can justify the abuse by Rush Limbaugh by saying it is all about your wallet. Rush was wrong and you are too. 

Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 14, 2012, 07:38:39 AM
The one thing that baffles me about conservatives is that they believe that they decide everything. They know how everybody else feels about everything and what they should do or say.

You or no one else can justify the abuse by Rush Limbaugh by saying it is all about your wallet. Rush was wrong and you are too. 

Never said I was justifying Rush. You reached the wrong conclusion. I was pointing out that libs use the argument I mentioned to justify attacking the likes of Palin & Bachman and such.

I don't know how they feel, but I know what they say. And it is pretty clear that the sources I mentioned feel exactly as I described.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 08:29:24 AM
justify attacking the likes of Palin & Bachman and such.

Any disagreement is an "attack" to you and yours.

Newt said he was being attacked by the "elites" in the press.  Santorum is being attacked by the "establishment".

Palin and Bachman are being attacked by the people who are made to cringe by the masses of lemmings who follow them.

Quote from: Townsend on March 14, 2012, 08:37:35 AM
Any disagreement is an "attack" to you and yours.

Newt said he was being attacked by the "elites" in the press.  Santorum is being attacked by the "establishment".

Palin and Bachman are being attacked by the people who are made to cringe by the masses of lemmings who follow them.

Heck, I've got beefs with all of those you mentioned, but you know good and well I wasn't referring to legit arguments with the above women. I would hope that you would back me up when I have legitimate disagreements with President Obama and not just assume it is because of race or I think he's a muslim or whatever.

The video linked is what I am talking about. I know it's from MRC, but it was the only place I could find it. I saw it last night on MSNBC. The condescension for women that have an affinity to conservatism is astounding.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/msnbc-political-analyst-alabama-women-voting-santorum-really-hurts-me

Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 14, 2012, 07:38:39 AM
The one thing that baffles me about conservatives is that they believe that they decide everything. They know how everybody else feels about everything and what they should do or say.

You or no one else can justify the abuse by Rush Limbaugh by saying it is all about your wallet. Rush was wrong and you are too. 

And liberals don't?  The liberal group think seems to be that people are too stupid to make their own decisions so government must decide what is best.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 08:29:24 AM
Never said I was justifying Rush. You reached the wrong conclusion. I was pointing out that libs use the argument I mentioned to justify attacking the likes of Palin & Bachman and such.

I don't know how they feel, but I know what they say. And it is pretty clear that the sources I mentioned feel exactly as I described.

Most of the libs I know attack those two because of that vacuous space in between their ears.  Or at least the appearance of such.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 07:06:18 AM
First, it could be argued that in many cases it is just as much a war on men('s pocketbooks).

Wow.....just wow.

Conan, yeah, sometimes people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That's why we have the Electoral College and why the Senate wasn't originally directly elected.

Quote from: nathanm on March 14, 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Wow.....just wow.

Conan, yeah, sometimes people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That's why we have the Electoral College and why the Senate wasn't originally directly elected.

Yep, WCG...

What is a "KRMG"?

Quote from: nathanm on March 14, 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Wow.....just wow.

Conan, yeah, sometimes people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That's why we have the Electoral College and why the Senate wasn't originally directly elected.

So who decides who the stupid people are again?

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 11:56:10 AM
So who decides who the stupid people are again?

They tend to volunteer themselves.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 11:56:10 AM
So who decides who the stupid people are again?

Ask Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Quote from: nathanm on March 14, 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Conan, yeah, sometimes people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That's why we have the Electoral College and why the Senate wasn't originally directly elected.

Now that the Senate is.... look at what we have.

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 14, 2012, 12:47:47 PM
Now that the Senate is.... look at what we have.

Appointed by the "they".

Said in a sarcastic tone..."elected, psshhhht."

Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 09:09:56 AM
And liberals don't?  The liberal group think seems to be that people are too stupid to make their own decisions so government must decide what is best.

Unfortunately I don't think there is a monopoly in that regard. For every liberal example of," people are too stupid to make their own descisions so the government must decide", I can find a conservative example of that as well.

Quote from: TheArtist on March 14, 2012, 01:04:27 PM
Unfortunately I don't think there is a monopoly in that regard. For every liberal example of," people are too stupid to make their own descisions so the government must decide", I can find a conservative example of that as well.

You mean like?

-"you can only marry these people"
-"you can't have that done.  I don't care if it saves your life"
-"You can only see these films"
-"we only want this religion pushed in schools."

I forgot..."you can only drink these beverages and only buy it on these days from these businesses and once it's opened you must be inside due to your shame*."  (*Unless someone pays for a license and police protection)

It's not so much that people are too stupid to make their own decisions. It's more like incentives are perversely aligned in a way that leads many or most people to make a stupid decision. The health insurance market is a great example of this. Every component, whether it be the insurer, the employer, the doctor/service provider, or the patient are all making decisions that maximize their own benefit, even when that results in an overall higher cost to the whole group.

People choose not to buy health insurance because they're "healthy". Doctors choose to run unnecessary tests. Insurers choose to continue without standardization. All these things are great individually, but when combined and magnified across the scale of our entire health care system, it's a disaster.

Same with outsourcing. It benefits everybody who gets a say in the matter in the short term, but at what long term cost?

Same with the TBTF banks. Their idiotic schemes make perfect sense on the individual level. It is only when combined and magnified that they become the disaster we saw in 2008.

The list goes on and on and on.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 09:09:56 AM
And liberals don't?  The liberal group think seems to be that people are too stupid to make their own decisions so government must decide what is best.

I agree that liberals are guilty of believing that government can often help. That belief is constantly strained by abuse, but under limits government involvement can be a positive thing in my opinion.

What I hear now is that everything that is connected to government is completely evil and unnecessary.

Why?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 14, 2012, 01:52:13 PM


What I hear now is that everything that is connected to government is completely evil and unnecessary.

Why?

Campaign season for Republicans, that's why.

Government serves a great purpose in regulating commerce, consumer projection, labor law, and putting in safeguards which protect the greater good.  They also have countless miserable examples of creating a "nanny state" that's ridiculous.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 02:07:36 PM
Campaign season for Republicans, that's why.

Government serves a great purpose in regulating commerce, consumer projection, labor law, and putting in safeguards which protect the greater good.  They also have countless miserable examples of creating a "nanny state" that's ridiculous.

While I agree with you about the nanny state, how are some conservative ideas much different?  Legislating what goes on in the confines of my bedroom?  You'd think the Libertarians/TeaPartiers would throw a hissy fit over alot of those that fall along those lines.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 08:29:24 AM
Never said I was justifying Rush. You reached the wrong conclusion. I was pointing out that libs use the argument I mentioned to justify attacking the likes of Palin & Bachman and such.

I don't know how they feel, but I know what they say. And it is pretty clear that the sources I mentioned feel exactly as I described.

Alf,

Let's face it, name calling has it limits. I don't reach past calling these women idiots.

Don't be surprised if the word also tars TNF members.  :o

Quote from: Hoss on March 14, 2012, 02:36:36 PM
  Legislating what goes on in the confines of my bedroom? 

Thanks for that mental pic.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZ1GoQANbYArkj3Zy5XEXgeSG6wkrZzRRdQpcGpSFYWq_qZRE)

Quote from: guido911 on March 14, 2012, 02:50:33 PM
Thanks for that mental pic.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZ1GoQANbYArkj3Zy5XEXgeSG6wkrZzRRdQpcGpSFYWq_qZRE)

Don't worry; not much lately.  But thanks for thinking of it.

:o

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 09:07:45 AM
Heck, I've got beefs with all of those you mentioned, but you know good and well I wasn't referring to legit arguments with the above women. I would hope that you would back me up when I have legitimate disagreements with President Obama and not just assume it is because of race or I think he's a muslim or whatever.

The video linked is what I am talking about. I know it's from MRC, but it was the only place I could find it. I saw it last night on MSNBC. The condescension for women that have an affinity to conservatism is astounding.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/msnbc-political-analyst-alabama-women-voting-santorum-really-hurts-me

Teabagger ?.... BTW, OUR President is NOT A MUSLIM!

what's it all about, Alfie?

Reading through this thread I must come to the conclusion that bi-partisanship is on the ropes and "digging heals in" predominates the ability to "get things done" through compromise and hard work. It's laziness maxed out in a leaderless congress. The hooligans on crapital hill should get their acts together. Unfortunately for the middle class, obstructionists rule the roost because that's the easy way. Politicians are all lazy good-for-nothings except when it comes to raising campaign funds and running for office. John Sullivan....what has he done for us? 

Let's see, over 120 sponsors bailed...wonder if any of those local listed have the balls? I love it because I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around. :)

Liberals talk of tolerance but they seem to be on a one-way street. Sarah Palin was badly attacked by the left and even her children are attacked, Joe the Plumber was even attacked for asking questions about Obama.

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 14, 2012, 03:01:55 PM
Liberals talk of tolerance but they seem to be on a one-way street. Sarah Palin was badly attacked by the left and even her children are attacked, Joe the Plumber was even attacked for asking questions about Obama.

Oh please. Apples and oranges compared to Hate Radio.

Let's vilify the liberals to protect Rush.

Mitch McConnell is the laziest of them all.... an old twit.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/mitch_mcconnell_to_constituent_marijuana_leads_to_death?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=997th&utm_campaign=digg2000

Quote from: Hoss on March 14, 2012, 02:36:36 PM
While I agree with you about the nanny state, how are some conservative ideas much different?  Legislating what goes on in the confines of my bedroom?  You'd think the Libertarians/TeaPartiers would throw a hissy fit over alot of those that fall along those lines.

Libertarians do decry such legislation.  I don't know anyone who follows Libertarian ideology who thinks legislated morality is a good thing. 

I at least understand the thinking behind the pro-life philosophy which really centers somewhere between the autonomy of a mother and her body, and at what point life begins and whether or not the rest of us have the responsibility to protect those who cannot, as of yet, protect themselves from death.

Again, my stated position is I believe that is a choice between a woman and her sense of moral code.

Try being a progressive....libertarians look back too much.  ;)

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 14, 2012, 03:20:50 PM
Try being a progressive....libertarians look back too much.  ;)

I'm working on it, might take a few more Spatens.

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 14, 2012, 02:58:20 PM
Teabagger ?.... BTW, OUR President is NOT A MUSLIM!

what's it all about, Alfie?

Reading through this thread I must come to the conclusion that bi-partisanship is on the ropes and "digging heals in" predominates the ability to "get things done" through compromise and hard work. It's laziness maxed out in a leaderless congress. The hooligans on crapital hill should get their acts together. Unfortunately for the middle class, obstructionists rule the roost because that's the easy way. Politicians are all lazy good-for-nothings except when it comes to raising campaign funds and running for office. John Sullivan....what has he done for us?  

Let's see, over 120 sponsors bailed...wonder if any of those local listed have the balls? I love it because I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around. :)

Way to set the discussion bar high. Trying to disqualify someone by hurling insults is what we were discussing earlier. We don't need examples.

Anyways, you're all right, I think they are all nuts. It is unfortunate that their are only two parties, so unfortunately I tend to have slightly more in common with Republicans. Does that mean I believe everything they do. Hell no. That's ludicrous. I guess you could say I am a classic liberal (although the left has hijacked the word).

I believe people, for lack of a better word, should be allowed to be as stupid as they want. Government in my opinion should only be taking care of a few things and most have to do with protecting me from you, not me from me. I believe people should be allowed to exercise free will and that includes in commerce. I should be able to buy or NOT buy anything I want. Believe it or not women have this right when it comes to contraception already (hard to believe if you watch the news). And no one is stopping them (or at least they will never succeed) and I don't want them too.

I believe the market should be free. Business should be allowed to flourish and fail freely. But I also believe it needs groups like the SEC and such to monitor them, not dictate to them.

I believe in free speech. Believe it or not people that think on the opposite end of the spectrum actually believe it most often. They are perfectly free to do so. Now, I also believe every action has a reaction and if the free market says no, then that's that.

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If you take away the incentive to succeed then no one succeeds.

I could go on. But we could argue all we want about how the Dems and Repubs are crazy and justifiably so. But to assume that people such as myself believe certain things just because I espouse freedoms, that's shallow. I believe a great portion of the population doesn't agree with much of Washington, but when election day comes, what choice do they have?

Quote from: Teatownclown on March 14, 2012, 03:14:08 PM
Oh please. Apples and oranges compared to Hate Radio.

Let's vilify the liberals to protect Rush.

Mitch McConnell is the laziest of them all.... an old twit.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/mitch_mcconnell_to_constituent_marijuana_leads_to_death?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=997th&utm_campaign=digg2000

Personally I could do without Rush and Maher. Neither one of them is funny or thought provoking.

I don't know how you can compare the two....one's got intelligent people and the other just ditto heads.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If you take away the incentive to succeed then no one succeeds.

This must be a damn shame, then:

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/12/opinion/031212krugman1/031212krugman1-blog480.jpg)

Apparently we don't even have equal opportunity any more.

You write as if there's some serious proposal out there to seize all income and distribute it evenly amongst all residents of the US or something. Nobody's advocating that. Nobody advocates that everyone make an equal amount of money. Of course, to hear Rush tell it, that's what Democrats are saying day in and day out.

Quote from: nathanm on March 14, 2012, 04:23:52 PM
This must be a damn shame, then:

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/12/opinion/031212krugman1/031212krugman1-blog480.jpg)

Apparently we don't even have equal opportunity any more.

You write as if there's some serious proposal out there to seize all income and distribute it evenly amongst all residents of the US or something. Nobody's advocating that. Nobody advocates that everyone make an equal amount of money. Of course, to hear Rush tell it, that's what Democrats are saying day in and day out.

Does anyone read what I write. Everyone wants to put words in my mouth.

While the government does not set out to make sure everyone has equal perfectly equal outcomes, it sure does try in many areas. Do we not have a progressive income tax system? Do lower income students not get more federal grants? Do poor people not take advantage of government programs more than the wealthy? By your own admission the government is trying to give MORE opportunity to poor students. I know this sounds rash and I will be called a corporate stooge and everything, but it is what it is. I for one am not against all these programs. But there again, your argument is false. Government does try to create equal outcomes, they just call it "leveling the playing field" in order to make you think they are making the rules more fair or something.

On the Pell grant note, do state universities give "discounts" to lower income students. Now that would be the way to go in my opinion. An actual reduction in cost instead of a redistribution of the cost.

Quote from: erfalf on March 14, 2012, 04:35:27 PM
By your own admission the government is trying to give MORE opportunity to poor students. I know this sounds rash and I will be called a corporate stooge and everything, but it is what it is. I for one am not against all these programs. But there again, your argument is false. Government does try to create equal outcomes, they just call it "leveling the playing field" in order to make you think they are making the rules more fair or something.

On the Pell grant note, do state universities give "discounts" to lower income students. Now that would be the way to go in my opinion. An actual reduction in cost instead of a redistribution of the cost.

I though you just said you wanted equal opportunity for all? Part of giving people equal opportunity to succeed is making sure everyone has an equal opportunity to get the education they need to do that. I'm not sure how you can separate giving people equal opportunity and "attempting" to give everyone equal outcomes given your statements.

And how is having schools lean more on the taxpayer to fund the discounts you suggest any different than giving students grants instead? Both are funded by the tax dollar.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 03:21:45 PM
I'm working on it, might take a few more Spatens.

Optimator?

Quote from: carltonplace on March 14, 2012, 03:56:14 PM
Personally I could do without Rush and Maher. Neither one of them is funny or thought provoking.

While Maher does perplex me at times, his panels are usually worth watching the show.  He *tries* to get a token conservative on from time to time anyway.  Usually they are more of the party conservative and not the bat-smile crazy ones.

Quote from: Hoss on March 14, 2012, 06:19:36 PM
While Maher does perplex me at times, his panels are usually worth watching the show.  He *tries* to get a token conservative on from time to time anyway.  Usually they are more of the party conservative and not the bat-smile crazy ones.

I think the complete moonbattery of the GOP has driven him over the edge. Back on PI, he used to trash Democrats at least as often as (most) Republicans. He still does have some to say about morons on the left, but it's rarely if ever as loud as his opposition to the Republicans. With Santorum as a plausible candidate, I'm not sure I can really blame him. The amount of anti-intellectual BS that he has spewed forth thus far is astounding. So is his brazen anti-contraception stance. I'll say that again. Anti-contraception. Not anti-abortion. Anti. Contraception.

Somehow, this guy is a serious contender!

Quote from: nathanm on March 14, 2012, 05:16:47 PM
I though you just said you wanted equal opportunity for all? Part of giving people equal opportunity to succeed is making sure everyone has an equal opportunity to get the education they need to do that. I'm not sure how you can separate giving people equal opportunity and "attempting" to give everyone equal outcomes given your statements.

And how is having schools lean more on the taxpayer to fund the discounts you suggest any different than giving students grants instead? Both are funded by the tax dollar.

I guess I should be more clear. Equal opportunity means that no one gets any advantages, regardless of race or creed or whatever. Grants (based on things other than actual qualifications) are a tool to create equal outcomes. I know I'm gonna get this whole only the rich will succeed bit, but I just don't think it is government's responsibility to be addressing this. If it does, where then does it stop: "Well, Jimmy doesn't have an iPhone 4 whatever, lets subsidize that too, everyone needs a phone." Ridiculous I know, but hear this "Well, Jimmy doesn't have a college education, lets subsidize that too, everyone needs a college education." Where does it stop. It goes back to who decides who is stupid.

A college education is not a necessity. I could give example after example of people that have little more than a high school diploma that are doing fantastically well (not millionaires or anything, but well). They didn't come from anything remotely close to wealth. It all has to do with attitude and work ethic.

And I see schools lowering the cost not as leaning on the taxpayer, but forced cutting of a bloated budget. Universities have been proven to be some of the most wasteful spenders out there. And now to top it off, it seems that the product they offer is far from as valuable as it actually costs. If they would step back for a moment and refocus on what their core goals are, I would guess they could cut quit a bit.

Also to be clear, I am only referring to public universities. Private universities for the most part should have the autonomy to do what they want, however if they want to accept federal student loans as payments, the government I guess should have some say so in some things, kind of like medicare I guess, although I don't know much about medicare.

Erf- I think making post-high school education a priority is one of the best investments government can make.  It beats entitlement programs hands-down.  I don't really see that as what we are told is "social justice" or "leveling the playing field".  You are correct that not everyone is suited for a college education, nor needs one.  I'm personally a proponent of better access to higher ed, whether it's the university level or vo-tech.  Sure beats research grants for the study of Facebook on people's eating habits, the mating habits of amoeba, etc.  Keep in mind not all individual educational grants are based soley on race, gender, ethnicity or even income level- therefore not really trying to level the playing field.

Nathan- We are approaching $4.00 gas in the near future, unemployment is still over 8% and Santorum is winning primaries, with contraception being one of his cornerstone issues.  I mean W T F?  I'm not sure whether to be stunned by his stupidity or those who think that's one of the biggest issues facing America right now.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 08:50:29 AM
Erf- I think making post-high school education a priority is one of the best investments government can make.  It beats entitlement programs hands-down.  I don't really see that as what we are told is "social justice" or "leveling the playing field".  You are correct that not everyone is suited for a college education, nor needs one.  I'm personally a proponent of better access to higher ed, whether it's the university level or vo-tech.  Sure beats research grants for the study of Facebook on people's eating habits, the mating habits of amoeba, etc.  Keep in mind not all individual educational grants are based soley on race, gender, ethnicity or even income level- therefore not really trying to level the playing field.

Nathan- We are approaching $4.00 gas in the near future, unemployment is still over 8% and Santorum is winning primaries, with contraception being one of his cornerstone issues.  I mean W T F?  I'm not sure whether to be stunned by his stupidity or those who think that's one of the biggest issues facing America right now.

It's not just his stupidity though, Conan.  The stupid thing?  That voters are actually buying into it.  Makes me scratch my head.

Quote from: Hoss on March 15, 2012, 09:27:13 AM
It's not just his stupidity though, Conan.  The stupid thing?  That voters are actually buying into it.  Makes me scratch my head.

Exactly the reason I simply don't think I've got much in common with the rank & file GOP anymore.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OK2otVeNzqo/TaxHSvec5LI/AAAAAAAACb0/QfIHBwOql2Q/s1600/dumb+4.jpg)

Quote from: erfalf on March 15, 2012, 08:30:03 AM
I guess I should be more clear. Equal opportunity means that no one gets any advantages, regardless of race or creed or whatever. Grants (based on things other than actual qualifications) are a tool to create equal outcomes.

Ok, so you don't believe in equal opportunity. Glad we cleared that up. That's fine. I disagree, but I'm not going to vilify you for it. We all have our priorities.

Quote
A college education is not a necessity. I could give example after example of people that have little more than a high school diploma that are doing fantastically well (not millionaires or anything, but well). They didn't come from anything remotely close to wealth. It all has to do with attitude and work ethic.

Yes, some people manage to do OK despite not having a college degree. Fewer and fewer every year, actually. It's not just about hard work, it's about the existence of the opportunity to succeed. Oftentimes a college degree is a prerequisite. Surely this is clear when you see that unemployment is always significantly higher among those with only a high school diploma than those who have a college degree. Sometimes folks get lucky, but it's not to be expected.

Quote
And I see schools lowering the cost not as leaning on the taxpayer, but forced cutting of a bloated budget. Universities have been proven to be some of the most wasteful spenders out there. And now to top it off, it seems that the product they offer is far from as valuable as it actually costs. If they would step back for a moment and refocus on what their core goals are, I would guess they could cut quit a bit.

OK. Just FWIW, the problem with public universities in my view are a) the drastically declining budget appropriations from the states and b) restricted donations that can only be used to build fancy new buildings with the donor's name on them. Few people are willing to donate towards maintenance of said building or general salaries. At best you might get them to endow a department chair. For-profit schools are (generally) even worse, as the costs are much higher and matriculation rates are much lower. Not surprising, since several of the owners specifically set out to game the system. The only advantage is that only the federal government is getting soaked by them. The state isn't paying much if anything.

Conan, I honestly don't know. If the tide was behind Romney, I could understand that. I don't think he's really what we need, but I can see how someone might think that he would bring something valuable to the table. Santorum, on the other hand..

I think TTC may have summed it up best (I think it was him) that the Dems have managed to sucker the GOP into the old social agenda debate again.  The GOP needs to stay on message about the economy instead of pandering to the furthest right element's moral agenda if they expect to win in November. 

Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 08:50:29 AM
Erf- I think making post-high school education a priority is one of the best investments government can make.  It beats entitlement programs hands-down.  I don't really see that as what we are told is "social justice" or "leveling the playing field".  You are correct that not everyone is suited for a college education, nor needs one.  I'm personally a proponent of better access to higher ed, whether it's the university level or vo-tech.  Sure beats research grants for the study of Facebook on people's eating habits, the mating habits of amoeba, etc.  Keep in mind not all individual educational grants are based soley on race, gender, ethnicity or even income level- therefore not really trying to level the playing field.

Nathan- We are approaching $4.00 gas in the near future, unemployment is still over 8% and Santorum is winning primaries, with contraception being one of his cornerstone issues.  I mean W T F?  I'm not sure whether to be stunned by his stupidity or those who think that's one of the biggest issues facing America right now.

I agree, education spending is a better investment than virtually everything else. But increasing spending alone does not create better education. I think that has been proven ad nauseum. And yes there are some grants for some crazy stuff. That is what I was leaning toward in another post. Universities need to refocus. If you've been, you know that you rarely see a real professor in your classroom. What exactly am I paying for? It's like going to a Thunder game to watch Durant's backup. Eventually people will stop paying, or at the very least evaluate their spending more thoroughly. I've just been doing some reading about how universities primary focus is not educating us. Why should a state keep funding organizations interest's aren't in line with what we are funding them to do? I'm just posing a question, by no means am I suggesting cutting all funding to our state universities, so let's not conclude that I'm so Ron Paul loon, I am just making a point.

Also, I think in my post I distinguished between academic and income based grants. I'm not opposed to the former.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 12:49:32 PM
I think TTC may have summed it up best (I think it was him) that the Dems have managed to sucker the GOP into the old social agenda debate again.  The GOP needs to stay on message about the economy instead of pandering to the furthest right element's moral agenda if they expect to win in November. 

The problem is that they have no real economic plan. Well, that's an exaggeration..they do have a plan. Their plan is to double down on Bush-era policies. Obviously, that's not a terribly popular message to be pushing. Between that and the vast majority of their support coming from wingers at the moment it's no wonder why they're pushing the wedge issues as hard as they can.

What I find inexplicable is that more than a few people are buying it.

Quote from: nathanm on March 15, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
Ok, so you don't believe in equal opportunity. Glad we cleared that up. That's fine. I disagree, but I'm not going to vilify you for it. We all have our priorities.

I think I was pretty clear that I was for equal opportunity, however I believe it should be based on actual qualifications and not statistics. I don't know if every university shares this policy, but Harvard looks ONLY at academic qualifications for admission. If you have no money, but you qualify, they will find a way. That is equal opportunity.

Quote from: nathanm on March 15, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
Yes, some people manage to do OK despite not having a college degree. Fewer and fewer every year, actually. It's not just about hard work, it's about the existence of the opportunity to succeed. Oftentimes a college degree is a prerequisite. Surely this is clear when you see that unemployment is always significantly higher among those with only a high school diploma than those who have a college degree. Sometimes folks get lucky, but it's not to be expected.

Regarding unemployment, those poll results naturally assume that a college education is the sole variable. You even admit that it's not. I wholeheartedly agree. I understand that to be a doctor/lawyer/accountant/teacher that you will never find employment in those fields without a degree. Fortunately, the United States economy is a diverse thing. There are plenty of opportunities available. Some of the most successful people I know without degrees all have their own businesses. In their case, and in most, it has vastly more to do with their work ethic. Are they going to win (that's what they think). Losers lose and winners win, in spite of education. And by no means were these people wholly dependent on luck. That would be an insult.

Quote from: erfalf on March 15, 2012, 12:52:20 PM
I agree, education spending is a better investment than virtually everything else. But increasing spending alone does not create better education. I think that has been proven ad nauseum. And yes there are some grants for some crazy stuff. That is what I was leaning toward in another post. Universities need to refocus. If you've been, you know that you rarely see a real professor in your classroom. What exactly am I paying for? It's like going to a Thunder game to watch Durant's backup. Eventually people will stop paying, or at the very least evaluate their spending more thoroughly. I've just been doing some reading about how universities primary focus is not educating us. Why should a state keep funding organizations interest's aren't in line with what we are funding them to do? I'm just posing a question, by no means am I suggesting cutting all funding to our state universities, so let's not conclude that I'm so Ron Paul loon, I am just making a point.

Also, I think in my post I distinguished between academic and income based grants. I'm not opposed to the former.

I've been to JC and four year and I'm presently paying for two daughter's college educations in Norman.  Fortunately one graduates in a couple of months...whew!  The older one gets some academic scholarship money which has helped keep me out of debt over her four years.  I'm still amazed though at the scholarships thrown the way of some kids who came from much wealthier families.

Don't get me wrong, I do like academic grants because it's as close a correlation you can make to a "qualified" recipient getting the money and who will likely achieve the result intended.  But giving money to those who can already well-afford their degree program necessarily cuts someone else out who may not have the means but may well have the desire, talent, and intellect to complete the same degree program.  I don't have a problem with income-based grants.  Cost can be one of the bigger barriers to getting a meaningful degree for many young adults.

I don't know if you've ever read the posts on here about common education (K-12) but it's no secret that more money is not the solution to the majority of educational problems in the United States.  Other countries achieve better results because there is more emphasis on family and the family is more involved in the education of their children.  That's also why you see typically better results from suburban districts than you do non-magnet or non-special program schools of inner city school systems in the same area.

Quote from: erfalf on March 15, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
I think I was pretty clear that I was for equal opportunity, however I believe it should be based on actual qualifications and not statistics.

It isn't equal opportunity when a C student's parents have the money to send them to college while the B student's parent's don't.

Like it or not, the statistics clearly show that kids from wealthy families make more money over their lifetime (on average) than kids from poor families. That clearly indicates that equal opportunity is not something that is present in our society at the moment. As I said, yes, some people manage to do well for themselves without a college degree. I do OK, but that's because I lucked into a work situation that got me the contacts and experience necessary to do what it is that I do. And it was just that, luck. I could just as easily be working at Geek Squad now. Plenty of my high school friends tried to take the same route but missed out on the opportunity I had and despite working a lot harder than I do haven't had the same success.

The thing is, we can't all be owners. Some of us have to be the cogs in the machine. More and more, being that cog requires a college degree, even when it it isn't strictly necessary.

OK, I'm beginning to wonder if the Republicans are pulling some rope-a-dope trick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/politics/violence-against-women-act-divides-senate.html

It's like they're trying so hard to look so stupid. Seriously, you're going to vote against continuing domestic violence programs because the Democrats want to expand the law to cover gays and grant illegal immigrants temporary visas so that they can be spared the double whammy of getting the smile beaten out of them and then immediately deported because they had the gall to call the cops. Sorry guys, but making it easier for all domestic violence to be reported and dealt with is not something you can complain about without looking like stupid. It's not the optics, it's the morality.

Granted, the Democrats are indeed turning the screws, but last I checked turnabout is fair play.

Quote from: nathanm on March 15, 2012, 02:33:07 PM
It isn't equal opportunity when a C student's parents have the money to send them to college while the B student's parent's don't.

Like it or not, the statistics clearly show that kids from wealthy families make more money over their lifetime (on average) than kids from poor families. That clearly indicates that equal opportunity is not something that is present in our society at the moment. As I said, yes, some people manage to do well for themselves without a college degree. I do OK, but that's because I lucked into a work situation that got me the contacts and experience necessary to do what it is that I do. And it was just that, luck. I could just as easily be working at Geek Squad now. Plenty of my high school friends tried to take the same route but missed out on the opportunity I had and despite working a lot harder than I do haven't had the same success.

The thing is, we can't all be owners. Some of us have to be the cogs in the machine. More and more, being that cog requires a college degree, even when it it isn't strictly necessary.

Your and mine definition of fair will always differ I believe. Let me ask this: Did those immigrants back in the 19th century believe it was unfair that they had little or nothing when they arrived, but others were far better off? I doubt it.

Yes those C students that have well to do parents often get more opportunities than those without. But do they take advantage of them, on the whole I would guess most don't.

And no, not everyone can just start up their own business, but if they possess and skill or talent that people desire, it is not impossible.

And not to throw praise to you or anything, although I'm sure you do deserve it, but I would hardly attribute what success you've had to luck. I believe luck is a by product of hard work and preparedness. Yes, there is some luck, but you've got to be able to take advantage of the luck when the time comes.

Quote from: erfalf on March 15, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Your and mine definition of fair will always differ I believe.

Quite possibly. I don't really think the world was a better place in the 1800s, so I'm not terribly inclined to consider the prevailing standard of that time as something to aspire to.

Quote from: erfalf on March 15, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Yes those C students that have well to do parents often get more opportunities than those without. But do they take advantage of them, on the whole I would guess most don't.
...
And not to throw praise to you or anything, although I'm sure you do deserve it, but I would hardly attribute what success you've had to luck. I believe luck is a by product of hard work and preparedness. Yes, there is some luck, but you've got to be able to take advantage of the luck when the time comes.

That's the thing, the C student doesn't have to take advantage. He/she gets by birth what others get only by hard work and sacrifice. I don't even have a huge problem with that in and of itself. However, describing it as fair or saying that the opportunity each has is equal seems to fall rather far from the definitions I was taught as a kid. By no means do I think you have to agree with me on policy, but I really don't understand how you can use the words you use with a straight face.

And yes, it seriously was mostly luck. I happened to be adopted by parents with the financial wherewithal to buy a computer back when they were still terribly expensive rather than growing up in a hovel in western Kansas. I happened to enjoy tinkering with them, I happened to go to a high school where the IT coordinator didn't mind me hanging around and helping out all the time even though I should have been doing other things, and most of all, I happened to meet a guy who had a strong professional network and who was willing to share his wisdom, most of which I promptly forgot.

Sure, some effort was required at each stage, sometimes even a lot, but all the effort in the world (OK, that's an exaggeration) wouldn't have made nearly as much difference had some of those links in the chain been broken. Luck brought the level of effort necessary down to something achievable by an ordinary person.

All that said, I do agree with the general premise that luck usually does little good on its own. I just don't see that as the end of the story.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 08:50:29 AM

I'm personally a proponent of better access to higher ed, whether it's the university level or vo-tech.  Sure beats research grants for the study of Facebook on people's eating habits, the mating habits of amoeba, etc. 

Someone had to be studying amoebas or we never would have known that they crawl inside you and eat out your brain!  Or how to treat the problem when it does occur.

Facebook notwithstanding, there are a ton of those obscure little topics that may, on the surface, appear to  be goofy, but yield real results.  I'm betting someone thought it was silly  to study why people chewed on willow bark at one time, too.  Who knows, there may be some explanation of the insanity of the Facebook phenomenon that could help some of those people.  Would have to mean a massive increase in productivity at work in this country and around the world.

Lot's of those ridiculed topics involve the study of amphibians of some sort or other - frogs, salamanders, toads, whatever.  The people doing the ridicule just show how truly ignorant they are.  The "flat earthers'... a lot like birthers...

Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 08:50:29 AM
...and Santorum is winning primaries, with contraception being one of his cornerstone issues.  I mean W T F?  I'm not sure whether to be stunned by his stupidity or those who think that's one of the biggest issues facing America right now.

Yes.  Both.

Quote from: erfalf on March 15, 2012, 03:56:28 PM

Let me ask this: Did those immigrants back in the 19th century believe it was unfair that they had little or nothing when they arrived, but others were far better off? I doubt it.

Now you're making the argument for illegal immigration?

It's not about new immigrants, it's about the people who were born here and have an institutionalized, concerted effort in motion now that intentionally puts barriers in the way.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 15, 2012, 09:28:32 PM
Now you're making the argument for illegal immigration?

It's not about new immigrants, it's about the people who were born here and have an institutionalized, concerted effort in motion now that intentionally puts barriers in the way.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, as I would assume most everyone coming through New York harbor was perfectly legal. I mean we literally went through them with a fine tooth comb. LITERALLY! It was just an example of people with nothing, and how they felt blessed to be here, even when we weren't handing them anything but the opportunity.

Quote from: nathanm on March 15, 2012, 04:16:33 PM
Quite possibly. I don't really think the world was a better place in the 1800s, so I'm not terribly inclined to consider the prevailing standard of that time as something to aspire to.

That's the thing, the C student doesn't have to take advantage. He/she gets by birth what others get only by hard work and sacrifice. I don't even have a huge problem with that in and of itself. However, describing it as fair or saying that the opportunity each has is equal seems to fall rather far from the definitions I was taught as a kid. By no means do I think you have to agree with me on policy, but I really don't understand how you can use the words you use with a straight face.

And yes, it seriously was mostly luck. I happened to be adopted by parents with the financial wherewithal to buy a computer back when they were still terribly expensive rather than growing up in a hovel in western Kansas. I happened to enjoy tinkering with them, I happened to go to a high school where the IT coordinator didn't mind me hanging around and helping out all the time even though I should have been doing other things, and most of all, I happened to meet a guy who had a strong professional network and who was willing to share his wisdom, most of which I promptly forgot.

Sure, some effort was required at each stage, sometimes even a lot, but all the effort in the world (OK, that's an exaggeration) wouldn't have made nearly as much difference had some of those links in the chain been broken. Luck brought the level of effort necessary down to something achievable by an ordinary person.

All that said, I do agree with the general premise that luck usually does little good on its own. I just don't see that as the end of the story.

I appreciate your positions. I am sure we will agree to disagree. Ain't America grand. I have a coworker that I have literally the same discussion with everyday. We both make good points that make the other think, but we will never agree 100% of the time.

I would still argue with my last dying breath that you made your own luck. For example, my current job, it was a fluke thing that it became available when it did. But I still wouldn't have gotten it if I wasn't qualified. Same with you. You have a skill for tech stuff. That skill is in demand. While it may be luck that you got this job and not that one, you more than likely would have gotten a job.

I wouldn't say that things were better in the 1800's, I might argue that peoples attitudes and work ethic were, which is more what I was focused on. They had better attitudes IN SPITE of the conditions. Of course, they came from worse. Now, the "poor" have more gadgets than I do. As poor as they are, they have gotten use to a standard of living that far exceeds anything in the 1800's. To be clear, my difference with you (I think) is whether or not it is government's responsibility to be taking care of things like this? I personally believe their is already an infrastructure in place to take care of the downtrodden. In Bartlesville alone, there is no way anyone, regardless of means, should go without food or shelter for a day. I know Tulsa has similar institutions. Heck, there is even a thing in town that gives jobs to mentally disabled people doing fairly remedial things, but valuable things (recycling/document shredding/thrift shop).

The way I say it with a straight face is I define fair by actually looking at the man/woman, not their pocketbook. Simple as that. I just look at it different. Some people deserve to succeed and some don't. It's harsh but it's true. And I understand that those that deserve it don't always succeed, but that's back to my initial point, equal opportunity not equal results. I just don't think the government has the ability to determine who deserves regardless of the criteria. So why should they keep trying?

I think the only way luck plays into ending up in the right employment situation is when you are in the right place to have your skill set or whatever attracted the employer to you noticed.

My boss and I have known each other for over 30 years now going back to high school.  Our lives have criss crossed in many different areas.  The ten years prior to me coming to work for him, he followed what I was doing career-wise and we would talk about eventually working together, but either the timing was wrong for me or him.  He walked into the business I owned about 7 1/2 years ago one day and said: "Let's go to lunch".

The "luck" part in that is that I'd known him and his family for a very long time and when he finally decided he needed job skills and an attitude like mine, I was the first person he thought of.  If my reputation in sales and marketing hadn't been impressive to him, though, no amount of "luck" would have landed me in this position.  That was the years of hard work, determination, and work ethic which really won me the job.

Marshall's!!!!!!!!

^^^^Thread winner!

Quote from: Conan71 on March 16, 2012, 08:53:48 AM
The "luck" part in that is that I'd known him and his family for a very long time and when he finally decided he needed job skills and an attitude like mine, I was the first person he thought of.  If my reputation in sales and marketing hadn't been impressive to him, though, no amount of "luck" would have landed me in this position.  That was the years of hard work, determination, and work ethic which really won me the job.

I guess the way I see it is that the second part doesn't negate the earlier bits. When I say luck is necessary, that's not to discount in any way hard work. Although hard work and/or preparation is sometimes not necessary it usually is, at least for us plebs. Sometimes you can make your own opportunity. Sometimes you can't.

I consider myself doubly lucky because I never really liked beer before I started working for someone who sells lots of it. My skin crawls when I think of what might have happened had he stuck to lawyering.

Quote from: nathanm on March 16, 2012, 12:41:39 PM
when I think of what might have happened had he stuck to lawyering.

You could have been Guido's buddy.

;D

Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 12:49:32 PM
I think TTC may have summed it up best (I think it was him) that the Dems have managed to sucker the GOP into the old social agenda debate again.  The GOP needs to stay on message about the economy instead of pandering to the furthest right element's moral agenda if they expect to win in November. 

Yes. Let's stay on the economy. It's sound....much better footing than when the Bushiviks were preparing to cut and run from the executive branch they left dangling.... :( sad but true...yes, Bush's fault...

Looks good...seems to be working!

Quote from: Conan71 on March 16, 2012, 08:53:48 AM
I think the only way luck plays into ending up in the right employment situation is when you are in the right place to have your skill set or whatever attracted the employer to you noticed.

My boss and I have known each other for over 30 years now going back to high school.  Our lives have criss crossed in many different areas.  The ten years prior to me coming to work for him, he followed what I was doing career-wise and we would talk about eventually working together, but either the timing was wrong for me or him.  He walked into the business I owned about 7 1/2 years ago one day and said: "Let's go to lunch".

The "luck" part in that is that I'd known him and his family for a very long time and when he finally decided he needed job skills and an attitude like mine, I was the first person he thought of.  If my reputation in sales and marketing hadn't been impressive to him, though, no amount of "luck" would have landed me in this position.  That was the years of hard work, determination, and work ethic which really won me the job.

That is what luck is all about.  That combined with the knowing the boss for 30 years is an accident of birth.  You could just as easily have known one (and probably do) who did not start a company, become successful and hire you.  But then, if the "luck" was right, you may have been the one to start the company first, and hire him!

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/19/543801/consumer-brands-conservative-attack-ads/

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/rightwing_consumer_products-01.png)

Thank you for the list, now I know who I should be spending money with to help with the cause.

Meh. After replacing Michael Savage with Clark Howard I pretty much have been done with them.

Quote from: DolfanBob on July 19, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Meh. After replacing Michael Savage with Clark Howard I pretty much have been done with them.

I'll take Clark Howard over Michael Savage any day.   Clark Howard recently arranged to have a Habitat for Humanity house in Tulsa and Joplin. 

Quote from: GG on July 22, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
Clark Howard recently arranged to have a Habitat for Humanity house in Tulsa and Joplin. 

I'll give him that, but generally I'd rather listen to Fran Drescher with a sinus infection read the encyclopedia than listen to Clark Howard.

Quote from: sgrizzle on July 23, 2012, 07:50:02 AM
I'll give him that, but generally I'd rather listen to Fran Drescher with a sinus infection read the encyclopedia than listen to Clark Howard.

I feel that way about Michael Weiner-Savage.

I don't really have a problem with Clark Howard. Just put him on at a different time. Michael Savage definitely has a strong opinion for the right. But he is also entertaining and funny.

Quote from: DolfanBob on July 23, 2012, 08:46:55 AM
I don't really have a problem with Clark Howard. Just put him on at a different time. Michael Savage definitely has a strong opinion for the right. But he is also entertaining and funny.

By "entertaining and funny" do you mean hate filled raving lunatic?

Quote from: swake on July 23, 2012, 09:12:02 AM
By "entertaining and funny" do you mean hate filled raving paranoid lunatic?

You left out an adjective.

Rush Limbaugh Sent Reeling After 3 More Advertisers Dump His Show

http://www.politicususa.com/rush-limbaugh-reeling-3-advertisers-dump-show.html


"Rush Limbaugh responded to losing advertisers The Gap, SarahCare, and Sam's Club by doing the exact thing that is causing the advertisers to leave. He continues to attack women."

Ebay too....


Buh bye....your daze is numbered.

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2012, 03:53:01 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/19/543801/consumer-brands-conservative-attack-ads/

Marriott - sadness.  I am a member of their "club"...and will be staying in one next week.  Would go to Hyatt instead, but they cost too much for not any more facility.

And the Ritz!!??  This was my next "go to" place for Chicago travel!!  Dam....can't catch a break.  Well, I stayed there once, so I guess that will have to do for my lifetime.... (about $450 per night.  Geez...)