Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Ear-Mark Ban


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Ear-Mark Ban Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/17/2010 7:01:03 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

You know, Lots of people make stupid comments publically, not one has asked me to put on a shirt (not even privately so they wouldn't be embarassed).   I would hope that is because people respect that I am old and don't care or that they just love the public attack because of some other issue (unknown to me).  But it seems that public attacks are much more important than the issue.   I thought this was the Politics and Religion forum.   Not attack me forum because of my desire to look the way I look in real life instead of something that I am not.   


Ah, Ken, how do I put this mildly,....you have quite the set of Grandpa Man Tits on ya! Big fuckin' jugs,! Ok, if you won't wear a shirt how's about a "Man Bra" or something?
I don't think anyone's worried about you getting a "chill" or anything!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/17/2010 7:14:04 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Looks like there is going to be a 2 year ban on earmarking. Personally I think this is a great idea. If nothing else, it will change the way business is done - one way or another lol


Don't get your hopes up. It's not a proposal, but an amendment Republicans want to attach to the first piece of legislation they can BEFORE the new Congress. Why? Because both parties use earmarks, and they want to force a vote while it's still Democrats who will appear to be the problem. After that, the matter will die, and business will continue as usual, but with a new negative campaign ad ready.

Earmarks also helped strike deals to both things forward. But since nothing is going to happen in the new Congress anyway, sure, here's hoping.

I hope no one's thinking that will suddenly balance the budget. Not even close.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/17/2010 7:19:52 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		LOL  Popeye    I live in AZ and you want me to cover up   LOL   come on   lol   It's AZ   Land of the Hot    LOL   But just for you caus you asked nicely instead of being stupid.    I changed it to the skunk that lived under my campsite up in the mountains above town.  

Still don't see why my pic is more important than the topic tho.

And Novice   Thanks.  

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/17/2010 7:37:57 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

quote:

The terms "red states" and "blue states" came into use in 2000 to refer to those states of the United States whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates, respectively. A blue state tends to vote for the Democratic Party, and a red state tends to vote for the Republican Party, although the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 2000 election. According to AlterNet and The Washington Post, the terms were coined by journalist Tim Russert, during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election.[1] That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to graphically depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold. Since 2000, usage of the term has been expanded to differentiate between states being perceived as liberal and those perceived as conservative.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states



Ah that sort of makes sense. I guess they chose those colors because if they'd done the opposite people would claim the phrase 'red states' to be "proof" that Democrats are communists.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/17/2010 7:45:30 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		My guess is that it just happened by chance, whatever the networks were using that year.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/17/2010 8:45:56 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

You know, Lots of people make stupid comments publically, not one has asked me to put on a shirt (not even privately so they wouldn't be embarassed).   I would hope that is because people respect that I am old and don't care or that they just love the public attack because of some other issue (unknown to me).  But it seems that public attacks are much more important than the issue.   I thought this was the Politics and Religion forum.   Not attack me forum because of my desire to look the way I look in real life instead of something that I am not.   


I do apologize... that was not meant as an attack on you, personally, Ken.  Truly. 

I was raised in an age and environment where men did not go around shirtless.  I find it odd... and oddly disconcerting to see men using shirtless photos of themselves on their profiles.  I had mentioned to Firm just the other day that I couldn't understand why so many doms use shirtless photos.  (One of the first photos of Firm that he sent to me was one of him without a shirt.) 

Perhaps I'm unusual, but as a woman, I'm not particularly attracted to photos of half-naked men, nor do I consider them terribly flattering or dignified.  Regardless of the age or physical shape of the man.

If it makes you feel any better, I'd have said the same about all the female cleavage around here, too.  Though I do understand that men much more appreciate the visual. 

And no... your appearance is not of more importance than the topic of your thread.  I just found it visually distracting and somewhat amusing the back and forth exchange between yourself and DomYngBlk (shirtless, as well) that dominated the first few posts of this thread.

For what it is worth, I agree it will be interesting to see if earmarks can be stopped for the next couple of years.  Unfortunately, no matter what political stripe they are, I have doubts about the ability of politicians to change.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 2:04:06 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

My guess is that it just happened by chance, whatever the networks were using that year.



My guess is that it's just par for the course for dimwit American journalists to be that clueless in the course of furthering their quest for ever greater oversimplification and pigeonholing.



(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 2:35:08 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		NATO taught us that Blue was friendly forces and Red were enemy forces.   I personally think that some supporter of the democrats remembered this from s/he time in the service and was playing some psychological game whether s/he knew it or not.  Based upon this primse, the media is out there demonizing all the Red States.   Making all those from those states the enemy of the United States.  

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 2:41:18 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

You know, Lots of people make stupid comments publically, not one has asked me to put on a shirt (not even privately so they wouldn't be embarassed).   I would hope that is because people respect that I am old and don't care or that they just love the public attack because of some other issue (unknown to me).  But it seems that public attacks are much more important than the issue.   I thought this was the Politics and Religion forum.   Not attack me forum because of my desire to look the way I look in real life instead of something that I am not.   


I do apologize... that was not meant as an attack on you, personally, Ken.  Truly. 

And no... your appearance is not of more importance than the topic of your thread.  I just found it visually distracting and somewhat amusing the back and forth exchange between yourself and DomYngBlk (shirtless, as well) that dominated the first few posts of this thread.



And let me add to that Ken, my joke was not meant to be personal.

I just found it funny that 9 of the first 10 posts on this thread were by you shirtless guys.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 2:52:05 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		And see guys I take it as my looks are more important than my mind.   That my looks are more important than the message.  Just shoot the messenger because you don't like his looks and don't even honor the post.  Well I have made you guys happy.   Personally I am good with my looks.   I know I am ugly, fat, shirtless, and that is me.    Want me to change try talkign to my wife.  LOL

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 3:04:37 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

And see guys I take it as my looks are more important than my mind.   That my looks are more important than the message.  Just shoot the messenger because you don't like his looks and don't even honor the post.  Well I have made you guys happy.   Personally I am good with my looks.   I know I am ugly, fat, shirtless, and that is me.    Want me to change try talkign to my wife.  LOL



Look, I just tried to explain that my post was directed as much at DYB as you, but you want to keep pissing and moaning about it.

It was a joke for Christ's sake, and it had nothing to do with your appearance.





(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 3:09:21 AM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline 		Meh I have less of a problem with Ken than with the girls who have tits in your face pics...he just looks like a normal guy in hot climate like he says, not like he's trying to be omg uber sexah

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 3:12:33 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		Boy did this one get perved.   LOL  

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 3:17:36 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Meh I have less of a problem with Ken than with the girls who have tits in your face pics...he just looks like a normal guy in hot climate like he says, not like he's trying to be omg uber sexah


OK, this is getting fucking ridiculous.

I have not said one word denigrating his appearance.

I only tried to make a joke about the lack of shirts on this thread and it apparently has become out of hand.

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 3:36:40 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		OMB has an interesting website that talks to earmarks.   As I was browsing it I found like $6Billion in defense earmarks in FY2010.   I find that interesting in that it was a Democratic controlled congress.   Since these did not go thru the scrutiny of merit based analysis, I think that cut would be nice for the deficit.

http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/



(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 5:15:38 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline 		You are sort of missing the point. If you are joe from Alabama and want to get a bill passed.......are you going to spend your time courting phil from Cali or jane from north dakota....earmarks are the only way that a representative from a small state can "bring home the bacon". The representatives from the small states that like this idea just bent over their electorate. Reality will be a bitch.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Ear-Mark Ban - 11/18/2010 5:26:22 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline 		Big deal, it is less than 1% of the budget, nothing like taking on something they can just change how it's paid for to ensure they still get their money to their districts, while fooling Fox news into believing they are actually doing something

Did you even see how fast Rand Paul flip-flopped on this, and don;t get me started on the teabagger whining on his first day about his tax payer supported health care and crying that he was not allowed to buy into it himself  (note to tea party, that was the public option)

< Message edited by housesub4you -- 11/18/2010 5:27:28 AM >

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Ear-Mark Ban Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094