from USA today --- lets here it for Babs Boxer and the unions "Democrats make uphill push for gas tax increase"
Well at least 9 of the GOP Senators listened to the voters and voted no and the LT Gov. had to break the tie. I was unaware that they had kept pushing for the tax after it had been soundly defeated, pretty stupid thing to do, hopefully the House is wiser or more in touch with the voters ..... I apologize. I have not listened to AM 760 WJR much since JP McCarthy passed away. Once again I am sorry for comparing you to Flounder....
Just wait... soon both Donald and Hillary will be the circus freak show feature performers for the mass media midgets....
old news... the amendment was defeated soundly.... digging deep to try and make a relevant post on your own. Your post was Flounder pathetic.
I'm glad Kerry helped you write your post....... Just like I posted earlier today, you don't have the ability to think for yourself and are a puppet to the progressive man.....
Flounder, well thought out defense of your intellectual ineptitude. You just keep proving my point about your rodent like mental abilities. Now go ice those daddy bags from the drubbing they have taken and don't mind that hand up your back side controlling your thoughts and actions. I will see you in a couple of weeks...btw Have a great and patriotic 4th of July, celebrate the birth of this great country with your friends and family and be safe.
Gay marriage ruling continued and why Scalia was wrong. It is accepted practice through law and code to give "special" treatment to the married. Whether it be tax, social or property conveyance "rights" on a Federal level. If Scalia's opinion were to be the opinion in the majority... what would that do to the "rights" not mentioned in the Constitution but by granted statute and code to straight couples? The tax code would have to be found in violation and discarded, spousal abuse laws would revert to assault and battery, child custody in the event of a divorce, the contract of marriage in the eyes of the government would no longer have the rights and privileges of special treatment of common assets, the list goes on and on........while I feel the Constitution makes no specific reference to marriage and the Federal government has no authority (it should up to the states if they want to codify it) over it, the authority has been "given" either though common law tradition, statue and code to the Federal government and therefore must be applied equally to all consenting adults.... even extending into the area of Polygamy if the law give treatment to any wed persons not afforded to the unwed. The pragmatic ruling is what happened, if one did not want to see the systemic shake up of the laws governing all marriage
Education continued --- Now let's take a deeper look at government education programs. Redundancy, bureaucratic drain of dollars, election funding and lack of outcome are all reasons to streamline the process. Yet. if any ideas are put forward to eliminate redundancy the left cries you are taking money from our children's future and hurting our children -- now why is that? simple answer is the power of bureaucratic nepotism in elections. Why not let programs expire that have not reached their goals or who's goals are so poorly defined at to just keep the machine's cogs in motion? just a repeat of the same big government cry of it hurts the children even if the program has not helped the situation. cronyism. Only in government accounting could a slow down in growth rate be considered a cut... or the elimination of out dated policies and practice be so staunchly defended by the elected in search of a electorate base. cronyism..............
Whoopi on rare occasions make a valid point......... Flounder on his own is incapable of that, though at times his sources he steals from do make a point worth considering.
Thoughts on your post "SlugSister: Are you too stupid to provide a shred of evidence of education policies and crony capitalism..... those are dog whistle words of the uneducated and stupid"
Do you believe that the Bush administration fed its supporters military contracts? From your post I conclude you do. That is an example of choosing winner and loser in crony capitalism. If you feel that way about Bush then you must agree that Obama chose winners and losers in the "green energy" space and therefore an other example of crony capitalism. Both sided use tax money to advance an personal or political agenda and win further support from the people that "paid" to get them elected. Whether you agree or disagree with the use of the tax dollars spent, both are examples of the government creating an unfair imbalance in the capitalistic system -- i.e. winner and loser, cronyism.
If you are unable to admit the inner city and low income school systems are a wreck and that the students get short changed in opportunities, quality and potential of higher outcome you miss the point. To admit that, one must look to why the failing of the educational system disproportional affect the lower income of society... what are some of the core problem that might create the disparity of educational outcomes? Systemic break down of the family in low income areas due to well meaning government? Teacher Unions protecting the unfit teachers? Unions fighting the voucher system? Merry-go-round of poverty? Lack of hope to escape the "hood" because all many generations have known is government hand outs and a system enslaving ones dreams? 50 years of educational failures have created the mess and when does it become time to try something new instead of the same old failed policies? D's support the teacher unions because they fund D' candidate elections, R's don't because they don't get a "fair share" of the campaign contributions -- cronyism.
Your flexible logic...... you want government to control and better the lives of the citizens, but only on your terms. You don't seem to understand that if the political winds change, those same powers the government has taken to enact social changes you agree with not accomplished through normal and legal procedures can be taken away in an instant. As long as you get your "feelings" on issues satisfied -- how it happened is of no regard, but when an issue you don't agree with is settled the same way as an issue you are pro, it is a travesty of social justice. Let us look at your gay marriage feeling -- according to you it is a smack down of the GOP and religious kooks..... the logical interpretation is it is the states having to respect the licences granted from other states and therefore a common law of the land is advantageous for equal treatment under the law (remember I wrote about the respecting of state driver licences from one state to another?). On an issue you oppose like Citizens United, you "feel" it is a travesty - yet did you ever read US v UAW 1957 and the
dissenting opinions of Black and Douglas (neither which are "right wing nuts") or the Citizens United decision in its whole or just the headlines that told you how to feel about Citizens United? The same logic was applied for the most part in both the decisions .. yet you cannot or will not see that.
Your reply is a perfect example of what I'm critiquing you about. You have the unique ability to not realize that your logic is flexible. Take any poll numbers that you have used the ThinkProgress or DailyKos summary of as an example....... you take the headline and interpretation as gospel , yet when asked or even shown were to find the methodology of the survey you refuse to "look" into the survey because it might disrupt the good "feelings" that support your view. Yet, when the same poll numbers are interpreted by an opposing view point you without even doing any research into how they derived the result you summarily dismiss them. You have not the intellectual depth or even the curiosity to research what your "thinkers" agenda is, yet will go after the agenda of opposing views on a purely emotion level. If you would apply a level of critical thinking or curiosity to the views you subscribe to as well as to those that go against your grain you could be considered rational.......instead you fail to see you are nothing but a puppet to how you are told to fell about an issue rather than being a "liberal minded" free thinker.
If you truly feel there is something to be gleamed from a "LINE board" in regards to MO.... you would "make more money" in a savings account. "So some advise stop being an (_0_) and stick to the subject" which is daily amusement at Flounder's expense.
Intellectually inferior -- not to you I am much more open minded, well read, better educated and thoughtful than you who never question a stance if it agrees with your feelings but summarily dismissed a dissenting view point. Recite garbage -- only because you are too slow to understand and unwilling to admit other points of view exist and have value. Out of step with culture -- if by that you mean your big government mentality and willingness to give up personal freedoms to a bunch of small minded ego centrist societal planners , you bet I am. Resentful streak -- no I don't resent you I feel sorry for you and your lack of open mindedness and willingness to be led by the nose into false narratives. You have fail to understand a thing I have advocated and instead project your insecurities on me. You truly deserve the Flounder label
If you have a couple of hours to burn -- read George Wills book on Wrigley turning 100, titled "A Nice Little Place on the North Side: Wrigley Field at One Hundred " pretty well sums up a Cub's fan. Oh and to answer you question -- too many times.
Wow Flounder.... should I write a blog for your thought police sites, so you will read and even try to comprehend was is written?