Print

[ducksoup]

Not really.  The last few so-called "rampant" posts ( ) have been pretty easy and painless to glance through, actually be able to read and move on, whether you agree or not. 


Live just asked if he was alone in growing tired of the endless, thoughtless blathering.  (loose interpretation acknowledged)  I just answered his question.  He's not alone. 

It's more of an "eye roll" for me whenever I see the name, much less the predictable blah blah blah that follows.   


But I'm not crying out for him to be stopped (thought it would be nice) because I too can ignore it.  It's just a LOT of white noise.   

He's absolutely entitled to his opinion and to take every opportunity for the sole purpose to bug, bother and waste perfectly good energy. 

Yep.  He sure does. 

Maybe the question was rhetorical and just a message to the guy that he's only entertaining himself.

 
But, it doesn't really mater, because looky here.  People are discussing something! 

Hey Live!  Good work!   


On topic: 

How about Romney, huh?   

Sorry, you may THINK you are amusing.  I think not.

Why is it that no one is trumping up the VP pick.  It has been known since Friday and the right isn't using it as a springboard, at least here.  What is up with that.  Why IS there crickets and random complaining about FF and not bragging up Ryan?

[Monique]

Probably because Ryan will prove to be as much of a boat anchor as the lipsticked pitbull of yore. Romney (and handlers) chose an extremist to round out their ticket. They will meet the same fate as McCain/Palin. 

[MM1]

I choose to avoid fighting about it.  How's that?   

[eriemermaid]

Everyone has an opinion.  Some just can't express that opinion and can only copy and paste.  This is called Monroe Talks, not What does Mox News and Rachel Maddow have to say.

[Professor H]

Everyone has an opinion.  Some just can't express that opinion and can only copy and paste.  This is called Monroe Talks, not What does Mox News and Rachel Maddow have to say.

Where's that Like button... 

[livewire]

Everyone has an opinion.  Some just can't express that opinion and can only copy and paste.  This is called Monroe Talks, not What does Mox News and Rachel Maddow have to say.

Exactly!!!

[Baby Hitler]

clearly I should have been more explicit in showing how you were insinuating romney by the mere context of the thread, so as to avoid the excessive and what I imagine, slightly bucktooth foolish laughter.

No need for insults, unless that bucktooth foolish laughter is your own.

Also, how was I insinuating it was Romney? Can you quote that so we can be on the same page?

To help clarify:

Duck stated

It is nice that you can argue "legally", yet it is still possible, is it not, that he could have LEGALLY paid nothing?  I am not saying that is or is not the case.  Personally, I think the idea of average people getting messaged about how many ways that the wealthy can LEGALLY pay less taxes is the biggest threat.

Then you countered with

Please show me a few democrats that have voluntarily paid more taxes than what was required of them, so as to not use any loopholes on their part.

Which I took to mean that "Hey, Democrats do it too".

To which Duck replied

Did I say that only Republican's use tax loopholes?  Geesh, I said that he and other wealthy people (democrat, republican, and giraffe party)would not like the level and scope of tax loopholes getting to the average people to see how extensive it is... and just for you Flanders FOR DEMOCRATS TOO.

Stating that it should be wrong for ANYONE to do it, and that those tax loopholes should be plugged, and that they, (the wealthy, all of them), wouldn't like their dirty laundry as to how much they actually pay as a percentage of their income, to be laid out.

To which you replied

My bad, for a second there I thought the thread was called "Mitt Romney".

Which seems to be directed at Duck, since you quoted him on it.

To me, it looks like you were attacking him for not staying on the topic of Mitt Romney? If that is not the case, what were your intentions?

[Frenchfry]

One should wonder why the righties are on the attack for videos they claim nobody watches. 

The right cannot refute what's posted so they resort to marginalizing the sources and when that fails, they attack the messenger.

Their attempts to impose censorship must not prevail.

And don't think the Romney thread has been chosen by chance....they're hoping the admin locks the topic.

Pretty soon the grass will be green enough to let the old folks continue their "you kids get off my lawn" scream....until then I'll just ignore and dismiss their same old shtick.

Now back on topic:

Paul Ryan - What You Need To Know
What should you know about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, recently selected by Mitt Romney to be the Republican Vice Presidential candidate? Will he cut Medicare and Social Security? Does he care about the federal budget deficit? Did he support the bank and auto bailouts? What about the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act? Finally, what about birth control and abortion rights?

Paul Ryan - What You Need To Know



Paul Ryan Budget Plan Explained
"Paul Ryan's budget takes us back to 1950. That's not a metaphor. That's a statistic. When the CBO projected Ryan's plan four decades into the future, it concluded that the size of government would shrink to 15% of the economy by 2050. How small is 15%? As a share of GDP, it would be the smallest government since 1950/'51. Here's Ryan's proposed 2050 budget and our real 1950 budget, side by side...".* What would the impact be on education, the border patrol, FDA, FAA, FBI, Medicare, and Social Security?

Paul Ryan Budget Plan Explained


Financial Deregulation: Paul Ryan's 'Path To Prosperity' -- For The Rich

[Frenchfry]

Ed Shultz: Mitt Romney's Pick is The 'Most Radical' VP in History (1/2)

Ed Shultz: Mitt Romney's Pick is The 'Most Radical' VP in History (2/2)

[Frenchfry]

Huntsman Sr. thinks Romney should release more tax returns
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54675098-90/huntsman-republican-party-utah.html.csp

[LetsGoWings]

Oh my...the young and dumb whippersnapper failed in his mission so the crusty curmudgeon crew are acting as reinforcements.

One should wonder why the righties are on the attack for videos they claim nobody watches. 

The right cannot refute what's posted so they resort to marginalizing the sources and when that fails, they attack the messenger.

Their attempts to impose censorship must not prevail.

And don't think the Romney thread has been chosen by chance....they're hoping the admin locks the topic.

Pretty soon the grass will be green enough to let the old folks continue their "you kids get off my lawn" scream....until then I'll just ignore and dismiss their same old shtick.

My guess is for the same reason people attacked Normal Joe for posting a ton of links, it is simply not conducive to the intent of the forum.

Maybe, people chose not to to attempt to refute your videos because every time they do it is met with another does of copy and paste or stuff along the line of "you stupid ignorant racist uneducated repuke" instead of why you actually believe their viewpoint is wrong.

I am not advocating for censorship, but even people who support the message of the video has said the copy and pasting has got out of hand, why can't you tone it down a little bit? I mean, you have probably posted at least 25 articles about Mitt's tax returns, including ones that have false information, why do you feel the need to submit an almost identical story that much?

[T-M-T]

My guess is for the same reason people attacked Normal Joe for posting a ton of links, it is simply not conducive to the intent of the forum.

Perfect example.  FF has become a lefty version of Normal Joe, only more prolific.  Several threads have become that "Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank..." thread that Normal Joe littered with post after post that no one actually read.  

Yes, it was his right to do so, but all NJ did was make himself look like an obsessive time-wasting fool for pasting hundreds of unoriginal, repetitive, one-sided posts.  No difference, except that NJ eventually figured out that it was a waste of time.

[ducksoup]

Well, apparently the right doesn't wish to talk about Romney or Ryan, or substance.  Sooooo.

Sometimes I miss the comedy of Normal Joe.  He was so far extreme in his character and made a joke of the far far right.  I only remember him making wild right wing echo machine rants and not posting links, but I could be wrong.  Like TMT said, one sided posts and never a response.  That was the problem.  There was zero response to anything, just the way way radical rants.   I don't really miss him that much, and he did return for a short time under a different name.  But I don't think Normal Joe left of his own will.

I don't really see the big deal with FF's posting videos or copies.  I never watch videos, or at least almost never.  I suppose if it would be the topic I would, but that is rare.  So, I just walk right past anyone's videos.  I read titles of articles and usually have read them before, or similar and don't do them either, it is easy to move on.

There are people here that make a career of trying to piss people off.  I find that worse.  And FF does that too, but it isn't just him either.

[LetsGoWings]

Well, apparently the right doesn't wish to talk about Romney or Ryan, or substance.  Sooooo.

Sometimes I miss the comedy of Normal Joe.  He was so far extreme in his character and made a joke of the far far right.  I only remember him making wild right wing echo machine rants and not posting links, but I could be wrong.  Like TMT said, one sided posts and never a response.  That was the problem.  There was zero response to anything, just the way way radical rants.   I don't really miss him that much, and he did return for a short time under a different name.  But I don't think Normal Joe left of his own will.

I don't really see the big deal with FF's posting videos or copies.  I never watch videos, or at least almost never.  I suppose if it would be the topic I would, but that is rare.  So, I just walk right past anyone's videos.  I read titles of articles and usually have read them before, or similar and don't do them either, it is easy to move on.

There are people here that make a career of trying to piss people off.  I find that worse.  And FF does that too, but it isn't just him either.

TMT is correct, FF is the left version of NJ.

The big deal is that it is not conducive to having dialogue, just like when people post an opposite opinion and get called a "ignorant racist idiot homosexual repuke". If I post something here, it will ultimately get buried by a page of copy and pasted articles, and some false information articles, that is a little excessive. I don't think any one is saying stop doing it, but I think they are saying cut down on the amount. If he submits less copy and pasted articles and has more personal dialogue, I bet there would be a lot more political discussion, but as it stands right now there is little personal political discussion with FF.

Seriously, how many articles do we need to see about Romney's tax returns? They are essentially all identical, except for the author and a few minor points in the article.

Also, I believe there are already other threads about Romney/Ryan, but what would you like to discuss about them?

[ducksoup]

Oh, I don't know.

I wonder about Him claiming that Obama is being negative when he is doing the same.  Seems like crying to me.

I really wonder a lot about the Ryan pick.  He is pretty heavily tied to his budget plan to change Medicare to a voucher program which really is "kill it" and tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the working people.  He wants SS privatized too.  I see them as negatives and not positives. 

I thought maybe some from the right would say why they thought he was a good pick.  Maybe some are in favor of the give tax cuts to the extreme wealthy and make the working people pay for it and think it is a vote getter. 

I wonder about the newest ad campaign of "Obama cut 7** billion or million can't remember, from Medicare.  Cuts that Obama made that are in the Ryan budget.  aside from the cuts do not and cannot reduce benefits.  I understand the method, it is cut at a strength.  I don't think it is going to work though.  We shall see.

Long ago, before the primaries I said I thought that the R's would nominate a losing candidate because they like getting what they want from Obama while still demonizing him, which they do.  I wonder to myself if Romney is filling that.  It seems almost ridiculous that the polls could be so close with the economy as it is.  Any other time there has been a bad economy like this it is a loser for the incumbent.  Polls for months have shown Obama with a slim lead and has been pretty constant.  The reason can't be because people like Obama so much, but dislike the alternative more.  In that I don't think it is Romney, but the Republican/Tea party radicalness.  Even people that don't pay much attention seem to know how divisiveness the R's have been. 

My wife said a group of coworker women were talking and said that the anti women things that the R's have done and said means they won't vote for Romney.  It surprised me.  I didn't think the women's issue was so big anymore.  It was not  a small group and seemed to be unanimous. 

Anyway, I guess I was hoping there were some R's wanting Ryan on the ticket and say why.