B-Man
-
Posts
68,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
My initial reaction to your question is, no it probably would not have changed the circumstances much.
I would caution our legislators and media from trying to "solve" too much here, less than 24 hours in.
Unfortunately blame will be apportioned to those many times removed, and the shooter will be partially absolved of blame by those who prefer to see fault in video games or talk radio or political rhetoric or anything else that can be conscripted to explain why terrible things happen to good people.
Our discussion should be about the shooter, the victims, and their families — and very little else — and we would do well to avoid breathlessly proposing radical changes to our constitutional order because a man abused his liberty.
Those with evil in their hearts are prone to do evil things, and those willing to violate strict prohibitions against murder do not care much about regulation of firearms or much else.
Stay safe out there B-Large.
-
A horrible situation, my prayers goes out to the victims and their families.
As to the 'journalism" point..............ABC news did exactly that, and went to the TEA party site first to try and make a connection.
ABC draws possible Tea Party connection with alleged Aurora shooterABC News has suggested that James Holmes -- the suspect in today's shooting in Aurora, Colorado -- may have a connection to the Tea Party.
ABC's Brian Ross reported this morning that there is "a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site... talking about him joining the Tea Party last year."
"Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes," Ross cautioned "but it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado."
There are two men named James Holmes in Aurora, and one named Jamie Holmes. Jamie Holmes is 45-49, and the other James Holmes is 50-54. It's overwhelmingly likely that it's one of the two middle-aged men who belongs to the Tea Party.
It took average people about two seconds to establish this, and they're not reporters.
.
-
To Tom's point--it would be a "voter tax" if anyone had to pay a cent to obtain anything which allows them to vote.
To anyone who thinks enacting an ID mandate wouldn't suppress voter turnout: you're wrong.
To anyone who thinks suppressing voter turnout is unquestionably harmful: you're also wrong.
To anyone who thinks a voter ID requirement isn't aimed at suppressing a very specific voter bloc: you're wrong too.
To anyone who thinks this isn't a deliberate tactic of the GOP to help them win election: you're in denial.
What a load.
No evidence, we just KNOW its suppression......of a specific group.
and if you don't agree, you're in denial.
Well sir, then the vast majority of the people in the US are "in denial", because polls show that they thinkVoter ID is common sense and will help the integrity of elections.
But, hey, YOU know differently..................lol
.
-
Democrat Party 'leader'................lol
Pelosi: On Second Thought, This Whole Tax Returns Thing is a DistractionFacing questions about why she and other top Congressional officials won’t release their tax returns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) downplayed her previous demands for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release his, calling the issue a distraction. As recently as Wednesday, Pelosi had strongly urged Romney to provide further disclosure of his tax returns. But today, while maintaining Romney should release more documents because of “custom” and “tradition,” Pelosi said the issue was trivial compared with economic issues. “We spent too much time on that. We should be talking about middle-income tax cuts,” Pelosi said after answering two questions about the issue.
.
-
-
I sorry Chef, its not out of context.
-
Amazing how despicable comments made by a pol who's more conservative than liberal can be turned back as being the fault of liberals.
In- !@#$ing -credible.
What an odd response.
I never said it was the "fault" of anybody, other than Bachmann herself.
What I said was, liberals paid more attention to what she says than anyone else.
I suggest that you reread, before your next "incredulity" response.
.
-
Fine. Both sides suck. You know what happened the last time only one side sucked and the other side opted for the high road?
McCain got his ass handed to him by Obama. You think Obama is suddenly going to play nice this time? Please.
And again...watch the whole comment (and most places ARE playing the whole thing "for context").And one thing you can't argue; he's genuinely believes that if it were not for the government, successful people would not be successful. Period.
And that is why I bolded the last paragraph of the article I just posted. You can try and torture his remarks as much as you like. He made several other references that support his pro-government positions.....it was no gaffe.
.
-
Remember when she was leading the Republican race for the nomination?
No..............that is in your universe.
Rep. Bachmann never won any primaries or caucus
in fact, she never came in the top three before she dropped out.
but, go ahead and lie, if it makes you feel better.
.
-
I recomend reading the whole article.
How "You didn't build that" became "He didn't say that"Tim Cavanaugh | July 18, 2012
What do you do when everybody's claiming your president said something, and you just know he didn't really say it, but all the video and all the audio and all the transcripts show that he did say it?
This is the dilemma faced by supporters of President Obama in the long wake of last week's "You didn't build that" speech.
The president's opponents are making a big fuss over comments that are on their face contemptuous of individual merit and out of step with American popular opinion.
The president's supporters have a multipronged counterargument: Either he didn't make those comments or they were taken out of context or even if they are in context they don't matter because we should be reading between the lines.
{snip}
But at TPM, David Taintor calls "You didn't build that" a "canard" that was cooked up by rightwing bloggers and belatedly adopted by Mitt Romney's campaign.
{Snip}
I remain in awe of Dave's dogged and enterprising journalism, but I don't believe he can "tell" when the president is saying one thing but apparently meaning something else. I'm also not clear on what Dave's getting at by selectively boldfacing the sentences "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that." You could just as easily prove the opposite by boldfacing "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Either way, there's no prettying up these lines. Exactly who is playing context games here?
A commenter on Emily Ekins' post last night goes even further, condemning the "intellectual dishonesty it takes to believe that's what he said." So I'll bite: What should we believe he said, other than what he in fact said?
The popularization of Derridaian post-modernism since the 1990s has generally been a lot of fun, turning mainstream Americans into sharp observers of signs and meaning who are sure that either there's nothing outside the text or everything is outside the text or both. But at some point it helps to look at that thing above the subtext, which is generally known as "the text." Up to this point the presidential election has been Obama vs. Obama Junior. With "You didn't build that," which his campaign has made no effort to clarify or redirect, the president has drawn a line in the sand.
There is no nebulousness here. Beyond the paragraph quoted above, Obama calls government spending "the investments that grow our economy." He ridicules the tendency of Americans to brag about being hard workers with a variant of "So's your old man." ("Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.") He instinctively names "a great teacher" when looking for somebody to credit for causing success in the working world. The president has boldly presented his view on how an economy works. His supporters should give him the respect of taking his words seriously.
.
-
Well, its up to her constituents whether she's sunk or not..........................
It doesn't really matter either way.
The only ones who quote her are the ones on the left..........................lol
-
More mockery, from twitter.................Obama Kids books
The Little Engine That Couldn't Without Federal Assistance.
Bob The You Didn't Builder
Solynderella
Oh, The Debt You'll Owe!
Fast & Furious George
.
-
Well...he can't do it himself, he didn't have help.
There's not much point in asking Obama for his tax returns............................
I hear he "has a lot on his plate"
lol
-
Well, all I can draw on is my own personal experience.
I have worked at three different hospitals here in WNY over the past thirty five years and I have never heard of one of our ER's refusing treatment.
Now, of course, there has always been some types of treatments refused for in-pts and ER patients, if they were not apprpriate, or readily accessible.
.
-
What is stopping Romney from asking for the same things from Obama?
While I like the decency answer, the answer is nothing is stopping him.
But IT IS JUST A DISTRACTION, there is no reason to really even respond to the media about it any more.
.
-
I was just thinking about my posts in this thread, defending a request for tax returns in the belief that honesty and integrity are an essential good to being an elected official in DC...
who the !@#$ am I kidding in the long-run.... LOL
Oh idealist me
Nothing wrong with that B
We all want honesty and integrity,
I just want to see the criteria set equally.............................fairness ......
.
-
Yes, but it also a matter of trust, and honesty. As much as elections are about credentials, we have to keep in mind this is about Public Office.
B, I think that we all understand your point.
But, I dont think that you can explain, why does he have to do more ?, whats the limit to avoid the "suspicion cloud" ?
He did release his tax returns. He's shown trust and honesty to those who are open..
Why does Mitt Romney have to do more than any other candidate ?
By the way, this is strictly rhetorical, as we both know the answer.
.
-
-
Then he will continue to campaign in a cloud of suspicion... whether that is media driven or not is irrelevant. If you run for POTUS, I think you need to be ready for anything. If you have not done anything illegal, release them now and move the discussion back to the economy again...
Again, I disagree.
The "cloud" will only be there for those who are looking for a reason/excuse to dislike Mitt.
I, for one, (though I am biased) admire that he is refusing to play the liberals/media 's game. He has released two years, no more is necessary.
-
John McCain has seen them and really hasn't said anything.
To no ones suprise, you are wrong.
Senator McCain has commented on them completely. I suggest that you at least attempt to get something right in your laughable spin.
To me, its important for Romney to release his records for the very fact that as president, he will be leading efforts to shape tax policy. Romney is innocent until proven guilty, but I think the public is interested to see if he holds himself to same ethical and legal standards as the people he hopes to represent.
I think it is a reasoanble request.
B, I respectfully disagree.
Mr Romney has released his complete records from 2011 and from 2010.
There is NO obligation to release more, other than for liberal curiosity.
and as for the myth that is often repeated here, that "pressure is building" & "the public is demanding", that is just mediaspin also.
.
-
The Romney campaign has released
commenting on President Obama’s Roanoke speech this past Friday. It packs a punch. Daniel Aronstein calls it the best political ad in 30 years.Quotable quote: “Did somebody else take out the loan on my father’s house to finance the equipment? . . . Through hard work and a little bit of luck we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it? We are the solution, not the problem. It’s time we had someone who believes in us. . . . We need somebody who believes in America.”
.
-
Economic Fears Hurting Obama, Poll Indicates
Declining confidence in the nations economic prospects appears to be the most powerful force influencing voters as the presidential election gears up, undercutting key areas of support for President Obama and helping give his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, an advantage on the question of who would better handle the nations economic challenges, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to further define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.
Perhaps if they wrote a few more stories about Ann Romney and her horses...........
.
-
More of the regurgitated belief (by many on this board) that the Obama media attacks are working..............is false.
Is the Bain Bashing Campaign Backfiring on the President?By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute
FTA:
But here’s the point. No matter what the missteps of the last four years or who was responsible for Washington’s state of stalemate, the harsh and vengeful tone of the president’s campaign leaves in tatters the foundational elements of Mr. Obama’s public identity. In most circumstances, that would be considered a fatal political strategy.
A friend who knows Illinois politics better than almost anyone tells me that scorched earth politicking is standard operating procedure for the president’s political right-hand man, David Axelrod. We can expect every kind of beyond the bounds attack on Romney before this is over, he warns, including attacks on the theology of the GOP nominee’s faith.
But, again, this kind of rip-America-apart tactic constitutes an about face in the president’s identity. Is that a strategy for victory?
Polling reinforces my doubts. The campaign of vilification has been underway for more than a month now. What has been the movement in the polls? Virtually nothing. Rasmussen’s tracking has Mr. Romney a little up. Gallop’s gives an equivalent edge to the president. Considering the intensity and cost of the president’s assaults, that’s not a good sign for the White House.
So here is my assessment, offered in the heat of summer when we all want to get away from our key boards and hit the pool, or the hiking trail, or the beach (which I intend to make moves toward right after I file this column): The president’s Bain is evil, Romney is Mr. Greedy 1%, and all you people who were part of starting new enterprises “didn’t do it” (as the president amazingly said a few days ago) – all of this venom is undermining the public identity that made Mr. Obama such an appealing figure four years ago.
If I am right, the results will hurt the president in November far more than Governor Romney.
.
-
After spending tens of millions of dollars trying to demonize Mitt Romney over the last two months, Barack Obama and his campaign had hoped to erode any enthusiasm for the Republican nominee. According to the new CBS/NYT poll, not only have they failed, the effort may be backfiring:
Meantime, three and a half months before election day, Republican enthusiasm about voting this year has shot up since Mitt Romney clinched the nomination in April, from 36 percent of Republicans saying they were more enthusiastic in March to 49 percent now.President Obama was helped to election in 2008 by a wave of voter enthusiasm among Democrats, however this year, Democratic enthusiasm is down a bit since March. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting this year than they were in past elections, compared to 30 percent four months ago. And 48 percent of Democrats say their enthusiasm this year is the same as past elections, compared to 39 percent who answered the same question in March.
Independent voters’ enthusiasm is also up with 29 percent saying they’re more enthusiastic now from 22 percent four months ago.
Overall, voters aren’t as enthusiastic about this year’s election as they were in 2008. Just 33 percent of all registered voters said they were more enthusiastic this year than they were for past elections, compared to 41 percent in March 2008.
The big takeaway, though, is that 49% of Republicans and 29% of independents express increased enthusiasm for this election, while only 27% of Democrats say the same thing. If Obama’s attacks are depressing enthusiasm, it’s pretty clear whose enthusiasm he’s depressing. That was always the risk for a candidate whose main qualification for office was hope and change, and whose signature outcome has been economic stagnation.
.
Voter ID requirement may affect black voter turnout, Dems Fear
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by B-Man
100% correct.
The polls show that Americans favor Voter ID by a large magin.
"The GOP should drop this issue"....................yeah, EVERYONE knows they're doing this for only one reason............
Mindless parroting.