tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Beautiful day out there! I was thinking about Rossi last night. He's in the 'real estate investment' biz, or was, rather - that has to be doing well these days LOL....and just blew his wad on two, and now probably three failed elections. Age 51 and drowning in debt. With all those kids. Ouch. I almost feel sorry for him, but then again I think...maybe there is a God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 don't encourage him. jesus freaks love their book of job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 No. sounds like off's turned INTO a republican!!! Only two posts in that motif and you figured me out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Rossi/Eyman '12! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 No. sounds like off's turned INTO a republican!!! Only two posts in that motif and you figured me out! Ivan's a bit of a quick study. The butts of the joke...um...not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 All we know is what you say around here. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Which is mostly regurgitated Fox sputum. An Obama-lover scorned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I hadn't thought about it that way, Tvash, but I think you're right: in a sense it was a fair fight. The impacts of Citizens United probably favor the Republicans over the Democrats at least a little bit, but that issue aside I think the main reason the Democrats did poorly is that they are completely inept at delivering a coherent message. For example: it is the Democrats' unwillingness or inability to simply point to the last three decades' example that allows Republicans and Tea Partiers to say that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible than the Democrats at this point, and apparently even well meaning and least somewhat informed citizens like KK accept such nonsense (I say somewhat informed because, although he may well watch a lot of "fair and balanced" FOX TV, KK at least gets the strait scoop here on cc.com). It's a fair fight for the two-wings of the corporate party, but not for anybody else. It's not a question of messaging for Democrats, it's a question of doing. In particular, making sure their constituencies don't pay for this crisis while the banksters get away with the loot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Michael Moore starts talking at 0:50 (after Obama's speech) [video:youtube]q-Ja63pX1lY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 It's a fair fight for the two-wings of the corporate party, but not for anybody else. It's not a question of messaging for Democrats, it's a question of doing. In particular, making sure their constituencies don't pay for this crisis while the banksters get away with the loot. how does restricting the speech of the rich promote the speech of the poor again? if the rule is nobody can spend more than 100$ on political speech a year, for example (and what fun that will be to define and enforce!), everyone's voice will go equally unheard as 100$ doesn't get you any tv and only enough stamps to canvass your own damn neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I hadn't thought about it that way, Tvash, but I think you're right: in a sense it was a fair fight. The impacts of Citizens United probably favor the Republicans over the Democrats at least a little bit, but that issue aside I think the main reason the Democrats did poorly is that they are completely inept at delivering a coherent message. For example: it is the Democrats' unwillingness or inability to simply point to the last three decades' example that allows Republicans and Tea Partiers to say that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible than the Democrats at this point, and apparently even well meaning and least somewhat informed citizens like KK accept such nonsense (I say somewhat informed because, although he may well watch a lot of "fair and balanced" FOX TV, KK at least gets the strait scoop here on cc.com). It's a fair fight for the two-wings of the corporate party, but not for anybody else. It's not a question of messaging for Democrats, it's a question of doing. In particular, making sure their constituencies don't pay for this crisis while the banksters get away with the loot. Hey, if you got something to say, go raise some money and say it. If you can't get anybody to pony up, sorry man. The Citizens decision does have the practical effect of leveling the playing field in favor of those who challenge incumbents, the latter of which enjoy the advantage of battle tested fund raising engines and name recognition. Case in point: Murray v Rossi - she outspent him 10:1 in direct funding, but swift boaters made up the difference for Dino, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 how does restricting the speech of the rich promote the speech of the poor again? if the rule is nobody can spend more than 100$ on political speech a year, for example (and what fun that will be to define and enforce!), everyone's voice will go equally unheard as 100$ doesn't get you any tv and only enough stamps to canvass your own damn neighborhood. What do you mean by "speech"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 [video:youtube]BtwC67DCfPg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) The Citizens decision does have the practical effect of leveling the playing field... There's that phase again. It "levels the playing field" for those capable of raising millions of dollars in corporate cash. Period. It's a de facto form of disenfranchisment as real as the poll tax, literacy test, or property requirement. It's just that now the candidates are pre-filtered by moneyed interests. Edited November 4, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 The Citizens decision does have the practical effect of leveling the playing field... There's that phase again. It "levels the playing field" for those capable of raising millions of dollars in corporate cash. Period. Yup. And that includes non-profits (like Citizens United, for example)- which includes the ones near and dear to my heart. We've got the smarts, fund raising engine, strategic thinking, balls, and now the freedom to speak out as we see fit. I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm sure that if you wish really, really hard, the Supreme Court will reverse Citizens United. Give it a shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) If your interests are being served by the status quo and your goals and are entirely compatible with corporate rule, then by all means, stick with it. Edited November 4, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 If your emotional needs are being served by sitting on your hands and complaining about something you can't change, by all means, go for it. Those of us who wish to remain relevant will continue to adapt to a changing world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Fuckin crybaby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Those of us who wish to remain relevant will continue to adapt to a changing world. A.K.A. buying ties so you can get into the fundraiser. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Sigh. Do you even know what you're trying to say anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 [video:youtube]BtwC67DCfPg Any questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Aw man, I'm just fuckin' with you. You keep on doing that good work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 [video:youtube]BtwC67DCfPg Any questions? Yeah, how much fucking money have they got? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm waiting with baited breath for the republican "cut spending" crowd to develop a balanced budget. I'd rather be a "tax and spend" liberal than a "don't tax and spend anyway" conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.