In remembrance of 9/11/01



Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 20th, 2017, 9:36pm EST

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members GamesGames Login Login Register Register
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic:  Politics

"Welcome to 'the Gridiron'... Fantasy football at its best!"

Fantasy Football News Feed Co-commissioner Services Add "the Gridiron" to your site
Lend a hand... Make a donation to "the Gridiron"!!!
   Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
   the Gridiron
   the Sidelines
(Moderators: Replay Official, Side Judge, Line Judge, Umpire, Head Linesman, Back Judge, Field Judge, Referee)
   G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic:  Politics
No topic|Next topic
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20  ...  24 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic:  Politics  (Read 52353 times)
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #425 on: Jun 16th, 2011, 11:29pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Regarding former Congressman Anthony Weiner and with all due respect to my friends at Fox News and all due scorn to most of the rest, the silly, feigning naive reportage and opinion discussions are sickening.  All of it makes Alan Colmes, whose position on the matter is ridiculous, actually look semi-reasonable.  It is because those on and, more importantly, in the right on this issue are not doing a good job of articulating the bottom line (and so here I am in my infinitesimal and off-the-beaten-politico-track corner of the cyberworld having to do it).
 
I hate to break the news to all the sheltered prudes out there, but what we know of what Weiner did, if it were done with consenting adult females, is not a big deal.  (That does not seem to be the case, but I am just saying if it were.)  The thing is, this is not ultimately about lying, cheating, sexual perversion, cybersex addiction, using public resources for personal matters (which was a silly line of pursuit), and so on.  It is about the reality that a government official, elected or not, who has access to sensitive information about our country and its policies and, moreover, is involved in the crafting of our national policies and legislation, canNOT do or have done (yes, including in the past) anything for which he or she can be blackmailed.  In other words, you do not have to be truly morally upstanding; you just have to have nothing to lose (as far as you yourself are concerned).  It is a pretty harsh way of stating the case, I know, but that is the bottom line.  Weiner's lying is evidence and his resignation is confirmation that he felt he had something to lose.  This argument is unassailable, and unfortunately it has not been presented, except for here at a FantasyFootballer.com.
Logged
Drew Rosenhaus
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '93, '03, '07, '12
*****
# 54





   
View Profile

Posts: 417

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #426 on: Jun 20th, 2011, 5:35pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jun 16th, 2011, 11:29pm, StegRock wrote:
It is about the reality that a government official, elected or not, who has access to sensitive information about our country and its policies and, moreover, is involved in the crafting of our national policies and legislation, canNOT do or have done (yes, including in the past) anything for which he or she can be blackmailed.

 
Our current political system actually supports and enforces this model. The large donors/lobbyists allowed to contribute all have their say and major influence in decisions by the people their money supports, whether we believe it or not. It may not be "blackmail" officially, but it comes awfully close.
 
So, in my mind, your above assertion is actually a condemnation of our entire political system and ultimately a call for re-structure at the very least. And if that's the case, I am behind that way of thinking for sure.
 
As for the original discussion...yes I do see your point. However, I'm undecided where this story would be had he been caught sending Mr. mini-Weiner to his wife. I'm not sure whether he would have been forced to resign under those circumstances. The blackmail issue might have been dramatically lessened in that situation. Just a couple of thoughts...
Logged

She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better. Burn her anyway!
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #427 on: Jun 20th, 2011, 8:21pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Here, here, DR!  And, I agree with your last paragraph.  The implication of my argument is that would be so on his end.  I know I would not be "blackmailable" if I were caught doing such a thing, assuming I had a sufficient package that is.
 
Changing gears real quick,... I wanted to get this up before O'Reilly tonight...
 
Just for the record, I was just as appalled when I heard last week about this rapper who called Obama the biggest terrorist in the world.  As if it were G-Dub, I jumped out of my seat and was like, "WTF!?!?"  And, I meant it, and I did not mean it just out of respect for the "office" of the President, which is the en vogue cop-out thing to say these days.  I meant it for the man, first and foremost, and our country, secondarily.
 
Thing is, would a liberal in this day and age sympathize with Bush in the same way?  And, mind you, with him it was not just some inane, relatively unknown rapper doing the trash talk.  It was much higher-profile entertainers and "presumably LEGIT" sources such as the mainstream media, academics and fellow politicians.  That is what reasonable conservatives such as myself, I like to think, have had to endure for the past eight or so years.  Consider the character assassination of Sarah Palin that has taken place.  Galling does not come near to capturing the sentiment.  The liberal hatred is unthoughtful, that is to say, knee-jerk.  ...  And, I still jump out of my chair for Obama... for it is the right sensibility.
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #428 on: Jun 21st, 2011, 3:02am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

(Boy, I am hitting the old politics thread here a lot lately. I guess that is what happens during an offseason lockout.)
 
My post this time regards Jon Stewart...
 
I do have a main point about Stewart, but I first want to make some prefacing comments, which actually serve to develop the point. Stewart does not think the New York Times is leftist. He does not even see that MSNBC is, at the very least, the left equivalent of what he believes Fox News to be. He must not watch Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz or have watched the, so to speak, late Keith Olberman. Schultz is obviously like the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, for goodness sake. Wasn't Olberman's firing a wake-up call to these people? No, it wasn't. At any rate, Stewart tendentiously wants to claim that he is not guided by his leftism, sort of. He still admits to the subjectivity of his humor, but he insists that is not the main thing. Entertainment is. The bottom line is Jon Stewart can chew gum and walk at the same time. Indeed, he blows bubbles and snaps his gum as he marches to the beat of the offstage left-handed drummer in his head.
 
That leads me to my main point. What an arrogant piece of work this guy is! He very smugly says right to Chris Wallace's face how "you" and other conservatives will "never" understand him, that he is a comedian and, small disclaimer, although his humor is "subjective", he is going for laughs and entertainment, not left-wing activism, though he wants "his voice heard". Bunch of double-talk! Rather, I submit that you, Jon Stewart, will NEVER understand the de facto muting of the conservative voice by the leftist mainstream media and entertainment industry because you are so embedded in the Borg that you are totally blind to it. At least there is some solid supporting evidence for such a claim. See above! I submit that it is you, Mr. Stewart, who does not "understand" the circumstances of the conservative "activist" more so than it is I who does not "understand" the modus operandi of a fairly far-left-leaning "comedian".
 
BUT, this, acting as if we can get inside each other's head (double entendre, for once, unintended) and read minds, is not getting us anywhere. So, why go there? That is the bigger-picture point! I could only follow you there. It is funny. Telling people what they do and do not understand is itself an "I know what's better for you" lefty-type tack. But, telling people what they do or do not understand typically comes back to bite you because really you do not know what people do or do not understand, and it ends up just coming off and coming out in the wash as the smug mudslinging that it is.
« Last Edit: Jul 8th, 2011, 12:00pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #429 on: Jun 24th, 2011, 9:18pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

So, Juan Williams is subbing for O'Reilly tonight, which I do not enjoy as much, and they are first talking about the Casey Anthony trial, which I could pretty much care less about, moreover, with Geraldo Rivera covering it, who gives credence to fringe arguments as if they were solid, and so I FLICK on over to MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell just in time to hear him, with reference to the situation with the debt ceiling, say that the "children" in the House - and by that he meant the Republicans - need a "time-out".  This was reminscent of Peter Jennings back in 1994 condescendingly referring to the public as having had a "temper tantrum" because they, by election, gave control of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in 40, that is, FORTY YEARS!  And, mind you, for 34, that is, THIRTY-FOUR of those years it was not split; Democrats held control of Congress, and from 1933 to 1955 held control of Congress for all but six years.  So, in other words, the Democrats had held control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress for FIFTY of the last SIXTY YEARS prior to that 1994 election while the Republicans held it for a mere six (the remaining four years Congress was split).  So, you tell me who ran this country into a ditch in the twentieth century!  And, please, give me a break with the denial of media bias!  You really need to look no farther than Jennings's comment vis-a-vis REALITY to confirm it!  You do not call it a "temper tantrum" when "the people" give the underdog party who has not had Congressional power for FOUR DECADES a stab at things over the party who has monopolized that power over that time.  If anything, a "temper tantrum" would characterize the lack of patience with and quickly voting out of that underdog party in favor of the monopoly party again.  But, hey, Chris Matthews gets tingles up his leg and he still somehow has a job.
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #430 on: Jun 27th, 2011, 6:38pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Just had to pass these on...
 
From MSNBC, you know the outfit that has no left-wing bias (according to, say, Jon Stewart - see above): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-morning-joe-mocks-rick-perrys-wee kend-speech-felt-like-an-alien/.
I ask, "it's another world" different than what world?
 
Then, more good times with Bill Maher and the New York Times libbos: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/folks_with_low_sloping_foreh eads.html.
How does that feel, middle America?
 
Finally, I just stumbled on this blather... Get a load of the commenters... What a bunch of poop-eaters... I mean the inanity is at an all-time high: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/21/6907570-enter-texas-gov ernor-rick-perry-the-movie-star-handsome-devout-evangelical-and-fearless-governor-of-texas-.
« Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2011, 6:50pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #431 on: Jun 27th, 2011, 8:15pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Forgot this in my last post of a little bit ago...
 
In relation to Herman Cain's critique of the health-care bill, his campaign slogan, according to Jon Stewart, should be "Herman Cain - I don't like to read." A truer slogan would be "Nancy Pelosi - I don't want you to read." Really, what's worse,... the joke or the REALITY??? Comedian Jon Stewart, you are more silly than you are funny.
« Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2011, 8:16pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #432 on: Jul 5th, 2011, 7:41pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

In the wake of the Casey Anthony verdict, it sickens me to see all the talking-head lawyers go on saying that our legal system is "the greatest system of justice in the world," as if they have actually studied the other legal systems of the world with the sufficient depth and breadth it would require to make such a claim.  I swear it is such a canned thing for American lawyers to say that they must teach it in law school.  Whatever the case may be, the claim is sophistry by definition, that is to say, they neither know the truth of the claim nor have a vested interest in its accuracy, in fact, quite the contrary (if you think it through).  Out of one side of their mouths they extol and exaggerate the virtue of our legal system, that is, hindering prosecutorial railroading on the part of the state.  Out of the other they admit that it is not about truth and justice but winning.  So, when they, both sides, boldly tell us (as they did after the conclusion of today's fiasco) that it is about justice for the victim, that is a bald-faced lie.  That is not what it is about, save for the fact that the presence of a victim justifies the proceedings.  At any rate, call me crazy, but that means the score is one pro to one con.  The fact that our system matter-of-factly rewards crime done well, by design or chance on the part of the criminal, makes it one pro to two cons.  Look, I do not know all the answers as to how to construct an optimal system of justice (although I have some ideas based on both my experience abroad and my education in Philosophy), but I do know that the claim that ours is the best in the world is utterly arrogant and sophisticatedly ignorant.
 
Changing gears, the speculation by the legal pundits about George and Cindy Anthony's hasty departure after the reading of the key verdicts today is likely to get out of hand.  It will be taken as further evidence of family dysfunction, illustrative of defensiveness on their part, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Let me just throw this moderate and beyond-the-surface observation out there.  It seemed to me that what they were saying by walking out the way they did was "Well, Casey, you totally threw us under the bus and besmirched our family name to save your own hide and we let you and even aided you in doing it out of fear that you, our daughter, could receive the death penalty.  Yet, you know that we know that you are not innocent and do not deserve to get off scot-free, moreover, at our expense the way you have.  At the very least you created this mess, and now we wash our hands of you.  Go enjoy your victory with your new family of loving lawyers.  See if they let you throw them under the bus the way you did us if there ever comes a time that you need to do so."  That seemed like the sentiment to me, and, if something like that is the case, that is not only not indicative of dysfunction and erratic behavior, but is actually a quite reasonable response.
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #433 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 2:06am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Again, I am hearing SCORES of legal pundits not talking about the right things here...  To hell with the legalese...  What is so vexing and infuriating to so many Americans is the defiance of common sense here.  The coroner's office cannot establish a cause of death.  The prosecutors cannot do anything about that.  The FACT is that we do have a dead body, moreover, a VERY SUSPICIOUS dead body OBVIOUSLY a product of foul play.  I mean it is not like this little two-year-old girl went into the woods, put duct tape on her own mouth, jumped into a couple plastic bags, and died of old age.  COME ON!  Next, let's just grant the position of the defense and all these legal lemmings that the forensic evidence does not point to anyone in particular (whatever, I know).  So what?  That is it!  You give up?  No!  At that point, confronted with a VERY SUSPICIOUS dead body OBVIOUSLY the product of foul play, moreover, that of a baby girl's, a half a brain and a little common sense would dictate that you let the (pretty darn good) circumstantial evidence lead you to the person(s) who likely committed the crime, the set of whom in this case OBVIOUSLY includes one, Casey Anthony.
 
But, I digress...  Our system of JUSTICE is not about achieving JUSTICE, but rather winning, no matter how many lawyers line up and give lip service to the idea of getting justice for Caylee,... but it is the best system in the world, you know.  Give me a break!  (Eh-hem, rinky-dink South Korea's, WAY better.)
 
Look, I agree with the contention that the prosecution overshot with the charge of first-degree murder, but this girl Casey is guilty of something and, whatever it is, it is pretty bad and entirely prosecutable under the law and probably deserving of at least a good decade or two in the clink!  But, hey, we made our bed long ago when we traded in common sense for legalese.
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #434 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 9:22pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 7th, 2011, 2:06am, StegRock wrote:
What is so vexing and infuriating to so many Americans is the defiance of common sense here. The coroner's office cannot establish a cause of death. The prosecutors cannot do anything about that. The FACT is that we do have a dead body, moreover, a VERY SUSPICIOUS dead body OBVIOUSLY a product of foul play. I mean it is not like this little two-year-old girl went into the woods, put duct tape on her own mouth, jumped into a couple plastic bags, and died of old age.

 
Just in case it is not abundantly clear, my point, which mirrors Bill O'Reilly's, is that, because the coroner could not establish a cause of death, all the jury was left to go on was the OBVIOUS foul play!!!  There was INDUBITABLY foul play, and, thus, there was UNDOUBTEDLY at least one foul player, and ONE person OBVIOUSLY fits the bill, that is, Casey.  So, this argument that "there was no murder, so there is no murderer" is silly and, worse yet, specious.
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #435 on: Jul 9th, 2011, 12:15pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

This fits here insofar as, as America has traded in common sense for legalese, we have turned our backs on ethics in favor of social engineering, which is ALWAYS tied to a political agenda...
 
It is so exhausting listening to ESPN commentators force the usage of the phrase "gay slur". The following rolled off "The REAL Feed" this morning:
 
Eagles WR Jackson facing heat after gay slurs
ESPN: NFL (09.07.2011 08:11)
Five months after appearing on "The View" to support a 13-year-old boy who had been attacked by classmates, Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson is making off-the-field headlines of a different nature.

 
Let's get this straight before we all walk like lemmings off the cliff of absolute tolerance,... which leads to no standards, which leads to no progress, which leads to no progressive thinking, which leads to (drum roll, please, )... no tolerance... Just calling someone a homo or fag or whatever, whether it is in good taste or not (which depends on the circumstances, and given Jackson's here it may not have been in good taste or at least good judgment), is NOT a gay slur. A slur is an aspersion, that is to say, slanderous. Save for this incorrectly watered-down use of the word "slur" where it is being used to merely indicate name-calling in the broadest sense, a "gay slur" occurs when you know that the person toward whom you are directing the gay term is, indeed, homosexual or believed to be homosexual and your intention is to stain or sully the person's reputation in the community so as to discredit him or her and prompt scorn and even ostracism. Just calling someone, say, a "blankety, blanking homo" is not a gay slur. This subtle propagation of the incorrect employment of the more severe term "slur" by outlets such as ESPN, contributing to the narrative that makes such slips of tongue and colloquial usage an offense subject to hefty fines (as we saw lately with Joakim Noah and Kobe Bryant), serves to socially engineer our thinking (that is to say, brainwash us). You treat someone well because he or she is a person (ethics), not because he or she is a gay person (social engineering), and no one would need to be reminded of that if we taught ethics (NOT religion or theology, mind you) in our schools and/or our homes.
« Last Edit: Jul 9th, 2011, 6:22pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #436 on: Jul 12th, 2011, 1:33pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I am going to try to make this pithy, and please understand that I realize that the following categories are not all totally mutually exclusive, but they are distinct.
 
What hurts the lower and middle classes the most: higher fuel costs, higher grocery prices, higher home-energy costs, higher electric bills, higher lighting costs, higher automobile prices.  How so, in particular?  Because the rich will still be able to bear the extra expenditures without feeling the pinch.  For the rest of us, just to use one example, buying mercury-filled bulbs that cost TEN to FIFTEEN times more but only last six to eight times longer (and that is according to them; it seems to me that they last two to four times longer, i.e., where my incandescent bulb lasts six months, these last about a year or two) (and as far as overall energy efficiency who the hell really knows) is noticeable when you have to live on a budget (and forget about it if you break one; $10 down the drain and a nightmare cleanup).
 
What also hurts the regular folks is higher taxes, including on the rich because, insofar as a high number of the wealthy are business owners and, not even persons, but corporations, that tax burden (and/or the LEGAL and accounting costs of locating loopholes like Obama's cronies over at GE) gets passed on in the form of higher prices; increased (hair-splitting unreasonable) regulations because, again, the fines and LEGAL costs on companies to follow them is passed on to the consumer, and expanded bureaucracy, which is funded by tax dollars and a source of profound fraud, waste and abuse.
 
Oh, and one brief digression, we are, by the way, going to get serious Medicare reform... as it turns out as part of (get this, drum roll please... ) Obamacare.  It was one of those hidden "goodies" Pelosi was talking about.  The only way to get this "goodie" passed was to slip it (past the American people) in a 2,700-page bill that no ONE could reasonably be expected to read and comprehend all the implications and ramifications of.  All the bashing of the Ryan Plan without attending to the actual details of it, despite its being of reasonable length and comprehensible, and this Obamacare "goodie", in section 3403 on page 1,000, you did not even know about, right?  Does Dem stand for Democrat or Demagogue,... or is there even a difference anymore?
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #437 on: Jul 15th, 2011, 12:25am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I cannot stomach Greta Van Susteren's EXTENDED interview with the genius jury foreman for the Casey Anthony trial. I have been avoiding it, but today got a glimpse, just enough for me to puke in my mouth a little bit. This guy admits that the jury was convinced of foul play, going as far as to say, in the short segment I caught, that they believed that Caylee's dead body had been in the trunk of Casey's car, but that they wished that the prosecution could have shown who put Caylee's body there. Are you kidding me? How about the woman a) who did not report that she, her TWO-YEAR-OLD daughter that is, had been missing for THIRTY DAYS and b) whose car it is!!! Talk about the CSI theory on this being right on the mark! I say kudos to Nancy Grace! All the flack she is getting, and I last weekend watched her show on the verdict after the first couple minutes of Fox News's Geraldo Rivera's coverage of it made me want to vomit yet again.
« Last Edit: Jul 15th, 2011, 3:03am by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #438 on: Jul 22nd, 2011, 4:25pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Besides lawyers, the other group killing our country is liberal political talk show hosts. I am out and about earlier and listening to the radio in my car. I hear this political talk show going on, so I stop and listen. It turns out to be a real far-lefty.
 
First, he is ranting and raving about the Tea Party and their unrealistic and ridiculous stance on our national debt and deficit and the impending situation with the debt ceiling, calling them "morons" and such. Then, on the other hand, he condemns the "idiot" Republicans for their compromised proposal, which only cuts $4 trillion of spending moving forward, that is, of an anticipated $25-trillion debt estimate if we just go with the plan of the Democrats. His point is that that is all the Republicans are fighting for here. Call me crazy, but, while such debt totals moving forward are not what I want to hear, the Republican plan is at least around 20% better than the Democrats. Overall it is not what I want to hear from my government, but that difference is not nothing. Indeed, it is that kind of liberal Democrat-style thinking, which mind you many a Republican has adopted, namely that a difference in $4 trillion is nothing, that has gotten us to this point.
 
But, that is not the real insidious part of the story. Don't you see what he is doing? He, on the one hand, is condemning the Tea Party for asking for too much in cuts (in fact, what the country needs), but, on the other hand, he is condemning the Republicans who are willing to compromise for fighting for what amounts to nothing. He characterizes the Tea Party as absurd and the rest of the Republicans as foolish. What he has done is put the squeeze on the Republicans, thus, leaving as the only "reasonable" "solution" that of the Democrats, which by the way is not a solution but just a continuation of the usual spineless "throw money at the problem" policy.
 
All the time this talk show host is playing subtle mind games by now and then feigning a middle-ground position and saying things like, and I quote, "So as to keep us divided, the Democrats have to say things about the Republicans, and the Republicans have to say nefarious things about the Democrats." Notice the subtle psychology he is employing by putting the pejorative language in the mouth of the Republicans. We can't be this stupid, but this guy obviously thinks we are. That's that arrogance and condescension that comes with left-wing liberalism. PLEASE don't fall for this silliness!
« Last Edit: Jul 23rd, 2011, 1:46am by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #439 on: Jul 24th, 2011, 5:37pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Greedy Washington, especially the liberal Dems, based on how they are DEMagoguing the debt crisis, that is!  Here is the rough monthly bottom line...  Revenues, mainly from taxes of course, total $200 billion a month.  The following: interest on our debt (despite all the Dems talking default), social security (which Obama himself has threatened), Medicare, Medicaid, active military salaries, and veterans' benefits TOTAL $134 billion per month!  Call me crazy, but, after covering those necessities, doesn't the math there put us $66 billion in the green... to, then, start spending on the luxury items???  That seems like more than enough for both the pork barrelers and the military hawks.  You are telling me we can't make some deep cuts!?!?  As the kids say these days, "For reals!?!?"
 
Please pass a link to this thread on to your friends who buy into the leftist DEMagoguery without doing their homework and who, thus, need a reality check on the basics!
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #440 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 9:09pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

If you weren't turned off by just the first few lines of Obama's speech about the debt crisis here tonight and couldn't see through the political DEMagoguery, you are drunk on the Kool-Aid of the left!  He takes responsibility for NOTHING!  Just what we need in a President!
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #441 on: Jul 26th, 2011, 2:33pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Have you heard about this new law being considered in San Francisco regarding ex-convict rights? They are considering affording "protected status" rights to ex-convicts. Instead of linking to sources of my choosing, I will let you do your own internet search and choose your own sources. But, even the moderate left-wingers have trouble with this one. That said, some people (like in comments threads) argue for it seemingly legitimately. However, such a law really just serves to compound the problem. What is needed is sober and honest reevaluation that is not guided by political correctness, not piling it on further with more legislation and compromising one group's "rights" for another's. That is the usual liberal left "solution", throw money or more laws at the problem. Meanwhile, that solves nothing. Really, all it does is increase government bureaucracy, just what the liberal left wants to do.
 
Bottom line, you want our country to look like California and, in particular, San Francisco for the generations to come, keep electing (liberal) Democrats to office.
« Last Edit: Jul 26th, 2011, 4:35pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #442 on: Jul 26th, 2011, 3:14pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 26th, 2011, 2:33pm, StegRock wrote:
Have you heard about this new law being considered in San Francisco regarding ex-convict rights? They are considering affording "protected status" rights to ex-convicts. Instead of linking to sources of my choosing, I will let you do your own internet search and choose your own sources. But, even the moderate left-wingers have trouble with this one. That said, some people (like in comments threads) argue for it seemingly legitimately. However, such a law really just serves to compound the problem. What is needed is sober and honest reevaluation that is not guided by political correctness, not piling it on further with more legislation and compromising one group's "rights" for another's. That is the usual liberal left "solution", throw money or more laws at the problem. Meanwhile, that solves nothing. Really, all it does is increase government bureaucracy, just what the liberal left wants to do.
 
Bottom line, you want our country to look like California and, in particular, San Francisco for the generations to come, keep electing (liberal) Democrats to office.

 
(I would have to study the stats, but...) How about a commonsense limitation on criminal background checks by employers of five to ten years (perhaps depending on or in relation to the severity of the crime)? Then, to cover those initial "probationary" years, combine that with an optional government "work"/paid community service program, which, side note, could also be implemented in the cases of working-age food-stampers, the long-term unemployed, etc., etc. Yes, this also perhaps expands government, but in the right way, that is, away from entitlements, which engender feelings of failure and incapacitation and a "society owes me" mentality, and towards personal responsibility, the cultivation of self-esteem and an "I can" attitude. Side note, you tell me, based on his own words and deeds, which of those two kinds of government expansion Obama seeks...
« Last Edit: Jul 26th, 2011, 4:39pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #443 on: Jul 27th, 2011, 12:42am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

O'Reilly tonight (7/26) was enlightening!  If you can catch it later tonight or on-line, do yourself a favor and do so!  The first half of the show was TOTALLY on the mark. The only weak segment - and it was very weak - was Bill's debate with Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, who really is a mental midget, but was victorious over Bill, who just couldn't figure out how to argue his point in a cogent way.
 
Anyway, takeaway insight...
 
Liberal fallacy - Entitlement programs produce prosperity.
 
Reality check - Entitlement programs are (supposed to be) safety nets.
 
Also on display,... on-point, logical, commonsense conservative straight talk versus change-the-topic, loose-logic, apples-and-oranges liberal fast talk (courtesy of Alan Colmes in the first segment).
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #444 on: Jul 29th, 2011, 8:12pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Why is a balanced budget amendment, which is exactly what the country needs, so toxic to Democrats?  All I can say is that the fact that it is is REVEALING!!!  The thing is, it is only revelatory insofar as we pull our heads out of the sand and open our eyes to it!!!
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #445 on: Jul 29th, 2011, 10:46pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 29th, 2011, 8:12pm, StegRock wrote:
Why is a balanced budget amendment, which is exactly what the country needs, so toxic to Democrats? All I can say is that the fact that it is is REVEALING!!! The thing is, it is only revelatory insofar as we pull our heads out of the sand and open our eyes to it!!!

 
On the left, such as on outlets like MSNBC, all this talk of "mutiny" in the Republican party and character assassination of those conservatives who are cogently and persuasively stating the commonsense position of fiscal responsibility is a load of BS!  TWO AND A HALF YEARS into the Obama administration and up until six months ago two years of Democrat control of the WHOLE federal government and the country still does not have a budget!  Is that how YOU run YOUR household?  The ONE federal budget proposal Obama presented in his two and a half years in office to HIS Democrat-run Senate was voted down by a vote of 97-0!  That is right...  0, that is, ZERO Democrats voted for it!  Now, THAT is mutiny!  I don't usually, but I have to provide a link for the uninformed on this one: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-again st-obama-budget.  At least they voted on that one, though!  Mind you, the vote count on the, now, TWO House bills regarding the debt ceiling would not be THAT lopsided, and Mr. Reid refuses to even bring them up for vote in the Senate. When are we going to wake up???
 
on Jul 26th, 2011, 3:14pm, StegRock wrote:
Yes, this also perhaps expands government, but in the right way, that is, away from entitlements, which engender feelings of failure and incapacitation and a "society owes me" mentality, and towards personal responsibility, the cultivation of self-esteem and an "I can" attitude. Side note, you tell me, based on his own words and deeds, which of those two kinds of government expansion Obama seeks...

 
???
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #446 on: Aug 4th, 2011, 9:10pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

So, I flick on over to MSNBC during a commercial break tonight just in time to catch this liberal pundit on the Rosie,... eh-hem,... Larry O'Donnell show actually say that cuts in the government "limit the government's access to the information it needs to lead the world effectively." That is SO scary on SO many levels, the LEAST of which is that such a philosophy allows for no decrease in government. The implication of his words is that there is only justification for increasing the size of government. Holy crap! Mind you, this pundit prefaced that what he is saying here is a very "small" point. YIKES!!! Imagine what his "big" points look like...
« Last Edit: Aug 5th, 2011, 1:41pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #447 on: Aug 6th, 2011, 1:05am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Michele Bachmann must be laughing her ass off, while shaking her head, of course, and thinking, "I told yous so."  With what has just happened this evening to America's credit rating, the following must be understood...  When it comes to balancing a budget (something Obama has yet to give us, by the way), raising revenues, that is, by raising taxes is never a sure thing because we never know that the funds are going to make it through the gauntlet of government bureaucracy and to its destination to pay against the debt.  The best, surest mechanism for balancing a budget is cuts.  Yet, the Tea Party (with whom I do not absolutely agree, mind you) gets demonized!  What the hell is wrong with us?
Logged
DirkDiggler
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14
*****
# 5





   
View Profile

Posts: 3117

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #448 on: Aug 6th, 2011, 8:33am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Aug 6th, 2011, 1:05am, StegRock wrote:
Michele Bachmann must be laughing her ass off, while shaking her head, of course, and thinking, "I told yous so." With what has just happened this evening to America's credit rating, the following must be understood... When it comes to balancing a budget (something Obama has yet to give us, by the way), raising revenues, that is, by raising taxes is never a sure thing because we never know that the funds are going to make it through the gauntlet of government bureaucracy and to its destination to pay against the debt. The best, surest mechanism for balancing a budget is cuts. Yet, the Tea Party (with whom I do not absolutely agree, mind you) gets demonized! What the hell is wrong with us?

 
Michelle Bachmann is a complete and total idiot.  Her beliefs are total nut job.  I loved the tape of her company  'healing' the gays.  What a whack job!
 
 
I am not sure how anyone draws the conclusion that the only way to a balanced budget is cuts.   The way to balance the budget is through revenue exceeding expenses.  So yes, cuts need to be made.....but reveneue also needs to be generated.   Tax increases have to occur......   Oil companies, subsidies, the super rich, etc all need to pay more.   And while I am not necessarily for paying higher taxes, I get it.   What really sucks is that I live in a part of the country where the cost of living is extremely high.   So incomes are higher- negatively impacting me in taxes.
Logged

"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #449 on: Aug 6th, 2011, 1:21pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Aug 6th, 2011, 8:33am, DirkDiggler wrote:
Michelle Bachmann is a complete and total idiot. Her beliefs are total nut job. I loved the tape of her company 'healing' the gays. What a whack job!

 
Well, we're not on the same page there... I don't have the time to argue our way out of that, and, in any event, our toxic environment of political correctness silences a whole segment of our populace (me in this case). Suffice it to say, go live in the Bay area (Oz) for a year and tell me that is the vision of America you are signing on for. Michele Bachmann may ultimately be wrong on the matter, but, so to speak, vis-a-vis DeSean Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Joachim Noah, et al. (see above), she is kind of serving to balance things out. I hate that that has to be the case and our behavior cannot just be based in ethics, where every human being treats the other with dignity and where you take the other simply as he or she stands before you, but the social engineering and sexualization of our society that has taken place over the last thirty to fifty years have put us in a position where we cannot even think straight because the rewiring of our brains (against nature, common sense and *logical consistency) has led to tangled wires that are too gnarly for us to intellectually extricate ourselves from, both personally and moreover socially. I hate to break it to you, but there is a distinction between treating gays ethically and believing that homosexuality is psychologically, genetically, biologically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, socially and culturally healthy for the person and/or the society, and, moreover (brace yourself now), someone can very reasonably be for the former but against the latter.
 
*(Academia, and, sadly to say, Philosophy in particular, has been a major culprit here. I know a professor who presents and is developing a thesis on a defense of hypocrisy. YIKES!!! That is going to do us good.)
 
Quote:
I am not sure how anyone draws the conclusion that the only way to a balanced budget is cuts. The way to balance the budget is through revenue exceeding expenses. So yes, cuts need to be made.....but reveneue also needs to be generated. Tax increases have to occur...... Oil companies, subsidies, the super rich, etc all need to pay more. And while I am not necessarily for paying higher taxes, I get it. What really sucks is that I live in a part of the country where the cost of living is extremely high. So incomes are higher- negatively impacting me in taxes.

 
No major disagreement here... I think it is a matter of emphasis. It is just that, at some fundamental fiscal (home economics) level, SPENDING is our problem. Taxing the rich is not a sustainable plan of attacking our nation's budget problems. Moreover, it is conducive to that caretaker mindset that underlies our entitlement culture of "what my country can do for me" instead of prompting a mindset of "what I can do for my country," that is to say, facilitating a sense of contributing to the country (something over 50% of our population does not do, indeed, does the opposite). The problem with just taxing the rich is that it does not spread out that feeling of investment, of being vested in. Taxing the rich is a SHORTSIGHTED "solution". The point ultimately is that taxing, while a possible temporary band-aid, is NOT, strictly speaking, our problem. Therefore, taxing the rich does not take care of nor even serve to address the PROBLEM. The philosophy of "throwing money at it", whether it is education (speaking against my own self-interest here; hell, as a poor guy, I am speaking against my self-interest across the board here, but I am speaking up for my self-esteem), welfare, or Pakistan, has to be evolved beyond. Forget about the fiscal, it is the psychological, philosophical and spiritual dimensions of the human experience that are being so damaged by the American culture of entitlement (which, I believe, has undergirded this distinctively American culture of ME, but I digress). Again, political correctness (and the fact that I have no time right now for this) prohibits me from going farther into my analysis, that is to say, simply saying what many people have identified as problematic and troublesome and are stuck discussing in their homes behind closed doors because of the ironic "Protestantism" and "evangelism" of the American left.
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2011, 3:06pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20  ...  24 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

No topic|Next topic

Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1!
YaBB 2000-2002,
Xnull. All Rights Reserved.

Most smilies provided by "MySmilies.com", "Jason's Smiley Collection" or "Clicksmilies.com".
"the Gridiron" Copyright 2002-2016 - Product of FantasyFootballer.com. All rights reserved.