Rape & Naked Congressmen

Judged:

1

1

1

GlitterSucks wrote:

<quoted text>Please register and Reader can give you tips on how to compose a more eloquent diatribe.
Actually being nice Reader. At least you don't give me a headache, okay slight lie, but not from dissecting a jumble of words.
That post made me feel like I needed to spell gokeefe's last name correctly, YIKES!

Judged:

2

2

2

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>It's THEIR money. You have no right to demand how they use it.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>More lies. Ever heard of Oprah Winfrey? Robert Johnson? Russell Simmons? How about every black NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL player?
How about Beyoncé and Jay-Z? Denzel Washington? Halle Berry?
George Lopez? Roberto Goizueta? Alex Rodriguez? Tim Gill? Jann Wenner? Chris Hughes?
Not a single one of them are straight, white males.
BTW, the top 2% is defined as having an annual income of $250,000.
If you think that's a boatload of money on the Northeast Coast or the California Coast, it just proves to me that you've never been out of Ohio.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>It comes from their work and investment. 47% of Americans pay ZERO in federal taxes and I'm betting you're one of them. Mitt Romney pays as much in a single year as the average American pays in a lifetime. You probably think that slowing the rate of spending equals a spending cut, too.

Judged:

1

Female wrote:

The wealthy use racism, religion, sexist attitudes and fear to manipulate the country into voting for whomever will benefit them the most. Romney is their man. Who does he owe the most favors to? The very wealthy that have given to his base. They don't want Obama, he does not benefit them, he wants them to pay their fair share. As long as they can supress the votes of the black and the poor, this increases their chances of getting into office. Why do you think the Repubs give so much to the chuches? So their members will vote Republican. Everyone is bought in the election. Money buys the presidency. And you are stupid if you don't think wealth runs the country. They don't really care about the people or the issues or morals, only how they can maintain their wealth and control.

Judged:

1

1

Female wrote:

The more wealth you have the more control you have. The only reason Obama got into office was because the country was sick of Bush and Chainey ripping us off and all the lies. Obama was voted in virtually by the people. The wealthy had no control.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wait what wrote:

<quoted text>
I stopped after the first four words. In the car recently, I was changing radio stations when I came across a liberal talk show host who said that Romney wanted to turn Obama into - and I quote - "the N word".
I haven't read every article on Romney, but nowhere did I ever read anything that even came close to that. So you were saying?

Female wrote:

<quoted text> Excuse me, I am not writing a term paper I am on Topix. If I hit the wrong key Oh well, I least I take it a bit farther than most of you hard right tea party idiots that are being used by the affluent.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>Agreed.
Now, if Joe Biden had said the same words, he'd be just fine and we'd be called "haters" and accused of "taking it out of context."

Judged:

2

Wait what wrote:

<quoted text>
I stopped after the first four words. In the car recently, I was changing radio stations when I came across a liberal talk show host who said that Romney wanted to turn Obama into - and I quote - "the N word".
I haven't read every article on Romney, but nowhere did I ever read anything that even came close to that. So you were saying?

Judged:

2

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
That was probably Toure, responding to Romney's "take your hate and diviseness back to Chicago." Romney may have used the word thug in relationship to Chicago politics, I forget.
What he was talking about was negative branding, which is nothing at all new. Lee Atwater talked about how one used to be able to use actual racial invective, but in modern, more civilized times, we must rely on nuance to accomplish the same thing.
The idea is to draw on images and fears already established and buried deep--and link them to the opponent. One of the propabios of Obama making the rounds (check with imagine--she seems to have them all) features a picture of Al Capone. Why? The only link between Capone and Obama is one of geography. But, it serves to draw up images of crooked Chicago politics.
Again, none of this is new stuff.
But, voters who wish to make their decisions based on issues need to be aware of attempts to manipulate their thinking.

Judged:

1

1

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
That was probably Toure, responding to Romney's "take your hate and diviseness back to Chicago." Romney may have used the word thug in relationship to Chicago politics, I forget.
What he was talking about was negative branding, which is nothing at all new. Lee Atwater talked about how one used to be able to use actual racial invective, but in modern, more civilized times, we must rely on nuance to accomplish the same thing.
The idea is to draw on images and fears already established and buried deep--and link them to the opponent. One of the propabios of Obama making the rounds (check with imagine--she seems to have them all) features a picture of Al Capone. Why? The only link between Capone and Obama is one of geography. But, it serves to draw up images of crooked Chicago politics.
Again, none of this is new stuff.
But, voters who wish to make their decisions based on issues need to be aware of attempts to manipulate their thinking.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>I would go with a flat tax of 15% with no deductions across the board. So $1800 in your example.

Judged:

1

Pr Jonah wrote:

<quoted text>
I am assuming that you are not granting any public assistance.
About a year ago I was reading an article about a large number of middle class mid-level administrators who had lost thier jobs...the economy generally being the cause, then the fact that corporations have found a new normalcy of getting by with fewer people...shifting the work to the still employed...coupled with technological replacement of tasks previously done by those who lost their jobs. So. We are talking here about a range of people in HR, Benefits, Payroll, Finance, Administrative Asssiting. A lot of them are women. They may well have bachelor degrees, but no licenses/credentials that are transferable anywhere. The article's bottom line was that reality that no one has the guts to tell them that they are most likely done. Their jobs will not exist into the future, and they're old. And if their unemployed status (full time professional) goes on for a couple years, maybe even a year, they're dead. The only thing left is retail, etc.
So. Let's say you have a single 55 year old woman, who hasn't been able to to get back into a professional track. She's exhausted her savings and assets. She's working 2/3 or 3/4 time at Walmart...trying to find some other job that could possibly be added to the Walmart job which won't give her a consistent predictable number of hours and schedule.
So. You want that woman to live on $850 a month.

Judged:

1

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>I'm OK with some assistance for a woman like that who is working. Say an amount equal to her federal and state taxes less one dollar. That way, she's still a net contributor and feels her struggle isn't in vain.
Symbolic? Sure. But positive. She's still got skin in the game as a producer.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>The only field where I could even imagine the possibility of success in what you describe is health care. And even then, is a hospital going to hire a rookie nurse at age 50?

Pr Jonah wrote:

<quoted text>
...I was working by day in a corporate law firm as an Administrative Assistant. One day, I found the file of all the resumes they had received for my job. All of them, except mine, were from people who already had their JDs.

tip wrote:

<quoted text>
First rule of thumb: Never hire a candidate who is overqualified for the position.