Bullwinkle III

What?! I would like to believe that this post is a joke. If so, a good one and I applaud you on your sense of humor. Unfortunately for you, I'm afraid for your sake that it isn't. You are spinning so fast that you can't see (or reason) very well. So let me take out an Etch-A-Sketch and draw you a verbal picture. This time pay attention to the words. Let me restate the quote for you: "Voter ID, which is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. DONE!" Of course LATER he said the politically correct thing. But he had a Akin moment here - he spoke his mind. And you don't get it??? Or maybe you don't want to get it. Now if there was a record of voter fraud in Pa., one could MAYBE understand this statement. But that isn't the case. Pa. has gone Democratic for many elections now. The Right is doing all it can to change that. This guy just spoke the truth behind every voter ID effort in the country. Really Freeman, if you're going to spout nonsense, at least make it credible. How about this: This is a Democratic tape in which they sliced his comment from two different sentences to make it sound like one? That's more believable than your poor attempt at explanation. And telling us what he MIGHT have said is simply apologetic pandering. Like I said before, stick to the hockey threads.

And now we can say, "Well that's Ryan (or Romney) being Aiken."

Never heard of the movie and I don't live in Ohio, so you're going to have to give us a review (as non-biased as you can) yourself.

I don't think it was racist either. But that's how the other side portrays it, which is to be expected. However there have been other times when Biden has spoken his mind, e.g. gay rights, which promoted Obama to support it. Personally I love Joe. Mainly because the guy has a heart and isn't afraid to let it show.

Akin simply had a Joe Biden moment - said what he really believed. Of course that's a no-no in politics and is only supposed to be mentioned behind closed doors. These are the same wackos who think that a zygote is a human being. Whether he resigns or not is irrelevant. The damage has been done. And as Axelrod said, his comments were "inconvenient", not "inconsistent". Right on!

So here's my question: Why are these ID laws (i.e. voter suppression) present only in Republican led states? I'm not saying that Dems are saints by any means, but I'd like to know when something this blatant has been done by the left. And when I say 'blatant', I mean that that come right out and say what they're doing as if it's OK. Similar to McConnell's initial statement that his sole purpose is to make Obama a one-term president. Talk about hutzpah! The decision on the Pennsylvania appeal to the state supreme court will be handed down in mid September. The court is 3 Ds, 3 Rs (the 7th (an R) has been suspended for corruption). If it's a tie, freedom loses.

The voting hours debates in Ohio are equally interesting. Each voting district is governed by an equal panel of Ds and Rs. The Ds wanted extended voting times to include the weekend before the 6th. The Rs agreed - but only those Rs in Republican districts agreed. The Rs in Democratic districts said no. So when there is a tie, the Lieutenant Governor decided. He is an R, and so he agreed with the non-expanded times of the Rs in the Democratic districts. Therefore the Republican districts received expanded days to vote, but the Democratic districts didn't. A lot of public pressure was put on the L. Governor and Federal intervention was threatened until a few days ago when he buckled and made all the voting district hours the same as they were before, i.e. not expanded. There were political reasons for this as there were for his initial decision to divide the voting days between D and R districts. The Democratic districts are around the major cities with high density populations. Thus there is always a longer waiting time to vote. In 2004, some waited over 8 hours, discouraging many. Hopefully they will have more voting machines in those areas as they did in 2008. But they didn't like the results of that election, so who knows? So the Republican games continue to win this election any way they can.

Ubkev - these guys (Freeman & Waldo) don't want to be confused by facts. That had become obvious to me - as it soon will be to you. They're in their own sandbox where they can create their own realities. When congressmen step up and openly admit that they're creating legislation for purely political purposes, notice one thing: They have nothing to say. Just as they did not comment on this piece of tape, which I have seen before and is truly shameful: Don't bother convincing them of anything. I have chosen to just let them be. Facts have no meaning to them.

Well, I can understand having them IF there were evidence of voter fraud. But I don't think there have been. The problem I have is in insisting on photo ID. Old people who don't drive will have a difficult time getting to an agency that distributes them to begin with. I've heard that in Pa. such agencies are only open one day a week and some counties don't even have one! Military ID is acceptable, but how many old people hold military IDs? I would suggest that for people over 70, any form of ID is OK. Reminds me of a famous quote (I am English BTW). Weather Alert! Fog blankets the channel - Europe isolated!

I can see that you had no trouble writing your thesis. It took me six years to complete mine. I'd like to add something you neglected, Obama's inexperience against Republican intractability. He was always known as a conciliator at Harvard Law School. In fact he was known for bringing disparate groups together. He was not prepared for an intractable opponent. When McConnell stated that his foremost goal it to make Obama a one-term president, he meant every word of it. Obama spent a lot of time attempting compromise that wasn't going to work. In late 2010 he finally realized that nothing of note was going to be accomplished unless he acted immediately. That is how the Affordable Care Act came to be - and how some parts were cut out in order to insure a speedy passage. Had he been more aware of his situation, he might have been able to spend more time ramming his policies through rather than trying to play nice. He has learned. I doubt his second term will be anything like his first.

One last note: Complaining about the House is unwarranted? What? After the right forced that body to rescind Obamney Care a meaningless 31 times? You consider that a good use of the House's time? I'm not going there. I am not a religious person, so I have no belief in any of them. But when it comes to incredulity...

Then I believe we agree. LOL!!! What is this, Opposite Day Waldo? You lost the only argument we had! 1. I showed you how the Soptic ad had nothing to do with his wife's insurance, the point being the effect vulture capitalists have on the common man 2. I gave you two concrete examples of Romney airing ads that blatantly lie. You reluctantly agreed! 3. He did have his prints on Bain after 1999. 4. He still hasn't mentioned his governorship except when asked, mainly because he'd have to face his flip flops 5. He attempted to relieve his "out of touch" persona by selecting Ryan - someone who is better communicating with people. 6. Life / Perception connection is undeniable. You must know that. 7. No doubt that Romney is a 1%er, no matter how you slice it. 8. He does pay a smaller % of taxes than most people - let's say, given your 50% 0 tax position, than people who do pay taxes. In fact under the Ryan Plan, he will be paying less than 1% in taxes. So tell me, where did you win this discussion? Unless you're still convinced it's Opposite Day. P.S. Please don't try to pretend that you're against both candidates. That won't sell. lol! Don't get me started on Mormonism...that's a whole other ballgame.

Typical non-response. Stick to hockey. 1. I do not know what riders were on this bill, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Still, it looks like a black eye for the GOP. Flag burning should be supported by liberals, so I don't see why the Dems would have a problem with it - except for the DINOs. 2. No, not "pro-rape", who would be for that? But with restrictions on the definitions, they have restricted women's rights. OK - when hockey gets started again. But I see you have no answers for my points. That's OK - if I were a conservative, I wouldn't have answers either. You're right. Today I'm in an ornery mood and not well suited to the likes of Freedman, etc. Those days happen too.

If you haven't been listening to Romney, especially in his 6 day European gaff fest, you haven't been paying attention. Guess that wasn't covered in your Long Island rag. 1. Pure speculation. You really have no idea what would have happened. Not every company that goes into bankruptcy emerges as the Phoenix. In addition, US auto bankruptcy would have had world wide impact and damaged the reputation these companies have enjoyed for decades. Thus he saved the US name from being tainted. Too bad the Republicans hated Obama more than they loved their country when they allowed America's economic rating to slip. 2. The question of the War on Women's rights by the right is evident. The GOP's position: forced vaginal probes, restriction/elimination of abortion rights, against the equal pay act for women, against the anti-rape amendment, in favor of imprisoning abortion doctors, eliminating Planned Parenthood, restrict or eliminate contraception, elimination of aid to low income pregnant women and babies, redefining rape, stalking, and domestic violence. 'nuff said. And finally, the "prospering" grandfather you speak of was indeed prospering - by his standards. Today we would call that life difficult, oppressive, and painful. But compared to life in post war Europe at that time, it was good. Everything is relative. None of us today would be happy with that "prosperous" life. So your point is moot. For someone who claims to disparage both parties, you do seem to veer far right. You are wrong in your analogies. As I stated above, it was the Republicans who allowed the country's credit rating to fall - in their own self interest. If you look back into history, you will find that when this country faced hard economic times, 62% of the administrations were Republican. Anyone who isn't making over $250,000 a year and votes Republican is voting against their own interests. Republicans support big business - that's why they're in favor of deregulation of industry (remember the Gulf oil spill?), Wall Street (remember the recent collapse?), and against environmental regulations which cut into business profits (familiar with Global Warming?). To say nothing about creating more tax credits for billionaires and billionaire corporations (which the SC - along with Romney - has now determined are people!). The Republicans kill their hosts - along with the people. The Dems aren't adverse to payback, of course. But to compare the two in reverse is wrong.

Wow! This thread has really exploded since I last visited. Well Waldo, since you took the time to pick me apart, it would be rude of me not to respond. I don't take anyone under 18 into my classes unless I talk to the parents first, so you don't have to worry. I have no intention of speaking to you. Of course not. The ad is valid as it stands. The problem was not with his wife nor her insurance, but with the actions of vulture capitalists who rape a company and leave nothing in their wake for the unemployed. The ad pointed that out nicely. The wife's health care plan was irrelevant to the point of the ad. Well, just off the top of my head I can think of two. In one of his early ads there is a clip of Obama saying, "If we talk about the economy, we'll lose." But these were not Obama's words, although through slicing and dicing, the ad made it appear that way. In fact, Obama was quoting John McCain. But of course that isn't mentioned. Lately Romney has been running an ad that claims that Obama supports welfare without work. This is not true. Both ads have been fact checked by various sources and all have agreed that these are blatant lies...and that's just what I can think of at this moment. Yeah, do you think? Did you believe that I did not know this? Romney claimed that he broke off all connection to Bain in 1999. But he still maintained a connection with them. Why haven't the SEC investigated? Well, there could be many reasons, fuzzy bookkeeping is a good one. No, in truth I've never seen him mention his governorship except in direct answer to a question about it. And it's easy to see why - he has flipped on almost every issue he championed as governor, most notably RomneyCare. Even one of he spokeswomen mentioned it in reference to the Soptik ad referenced above. She pointed out that if the Soptik's had lived in Massachusetts, the man's wife would have been covered for her illness. Thank You. You must be kidding me. Are you serious??? Have you ever seen this guy interact with people in real life? He's a manikin who says stupid things like, "The trees are the right height in this state." He's a rich guy who hasn't a clue how the average man or woman struggles to survive. Not a clue - and it shows, badly. As the saying goes, Romney was born on third and dreamt he hit a triple. Just wait until the debates when you can compare them side-by-side. Then the wheat will be separated from the chaff and Obama's poll numbers will go even higher. I have no idea what "Warriors of Love" is or are. That statement is simple fact that everyone should be aware of - particularly if you're in politics. I'd like to see the data that over 50% of all Americans pay no taxes. But the point is really about Romney. For those who do pay taxes, how would they feel to know that they're paying 20%, 30%, whatever when he pays half of that? And with the Ryan Plan Romney will pay less than 1% in taxes. Remember what I said about perception. So what? That doesn't mean anything in and of itself. 1% of my income vs. 1% of Romney's income isn't even close. Obviously the poorer guy will be most affected by whatever percentage you use. But speaking of class warfare, then why do the richest get most of the tax breaks? THIS is class warfare. ====================================================== While I'm online, let me address one issue some of you have brought up - Romney's taxes. Look. Romney isn't applying to be manager of the local Burger King. He's applying for the position of the most powerful man in the world. He claims he can do the job because of his business experience. Well then, shouldn't we be allowed to take a look at his business? Romney says "No". We are to take him at his word that everything is A-OK. This from a guy who has been associated with shady tax shelters his whole life. But I will say one thing for him - he's got balls. While running for governor, he demanded that Shannon O'Brien, his opponent, release her tax returns. She did. Then he got into an uproar when her husband wouldn't release his! Meanwhile Romney wouldn't do the same. Romney's own father countenanced giving 12 years of returns, saying that the people deserve to know everything. One year can be a fluke. Romney gave 23 years of returns to McCain when he was being vetted for VP, but he won't turn over anything to us? If he did so, all this tax talk will go away. But the longer he holds out, the more it will hurt his candidacy. People aren't stupid. It becomes increasingly obvious that he's holding back because he has something to hide. There is no other reason for his reluctance to come clean. And the one return he did submit is missing important papers regarding his Swiss Bank account. Look - you have to turn over your tax returns to run for congress...even to buy a house. Shouldn't this be the lease we expect from a guy who flaunts his business expertise and claims he can fix the economy?

Yep. I teach many things all under one theme - how to live a happier life.

True, Bain had nothing to do with her insurance. But obviously if he were working and was covered, she would have had coverage. The bottom line is he lost his insurance. That's the whole issue. The thing is, every working man across the country can relate to this situation, which is what makes the ad so powerful. Why they don't run it is beyond me, considering the non-truths and half-truths of some of the Romney ads. The deal about Romney's taxes regarding Bain is the fact that he never really left the company, even when running the Olympics. He was still CEO, although he lied about that to the SEC and on the stump, saying he was no longer connected. The details of his financial transactions certainly speaks to the way in which he conducts business - and that's the card he wants to play regarding his qualifications. That was always strange to me...you would think that being governor of a state is more similar to being president of a country than being in private business would. Yet he doesn't want to talk about his governorship. Everything in life is perception. Hell, I even teach classes based upon that one point. Romney is perceived as a rich elitist out of touch with the common man. His performance on the stump reinforces that image. To admit that he has so much money that he pays a smaller percentage of taxes than most Americans enhances the 1% perception. This is a loser for him. But holding back his taxes makes it seem even worse - that he might even have done something illegal. In the past several decades, the guy who won the presidency was the guy people could best relate to. While this contest may be close now, I think come debate time, Obama's lead will just grow.

1st paragraph: Taking the buyout would not have given them health insurance for very long. The guy was too old to be very employable IMO. The job he took after GST Steel folded paid $15,000 a year - try to purchase health insurance with that. Bain had everything to do with the loss of his health insurance because they didn't leave enough behind to fund it. That is the bottom line. 2nd paragraph: Of course the economy is a losing issue for Obama - I've stated that before. But at the same time Romney refuses to reveal his taxes, which are a record of his business dealings. You must see the problem here. Romney wants us to trust him. He pulled the same trick when he ran for governor. His opponent provided her taxes yet Romney complained because her husband didn't reveal his, while at the same time Romney didn't reveal any himself. If you're Obama, you have to go after this. Just like Romney stated that if he didn't take every tax deduction offered, he would not be qualified to be president, so too Obama would not be qualified if he failed to take advantage of an opponent who delivers self-inflicted wounds. Whether you agree with Romney paying little or no taxes or not, the point is that the American people will not be happy to hear this. Even more so after Romney himself said that he paid at least 13% each year - but retracted that and said he'd have to check up and "get back to you". He never "got back to us" and his staff dropped the issue. And I can't believe you fell for the "workfare" nonsense. To think that Obama wants people to get welfare for no work is ridiculous. This is more Romney propaganda - IOW, more lies.

Here is something you don't know: The Soptic ad about his wife's death isn't running anywhere except on the internet! It appears as if it's in every battleground state running 24/7 because the Republicans are so apoplectic about it. The gist of the ad is not that Romney killed this woman, but that Bain Capital was so profit-driven that they didn't even leave enough money behind to fund the health care systems of the newly unemployed. This shows lack of compassion for the average guy in the interest of pure profit. True Blue's take on the effect on Wisconsin is irrelevant if Obama wins Florida, as I've stated above. No, I don't think Ryan will make Wisconsin red and I don't think the Dems will spend much money up there. Instead I expect them to double-down on Florida since it seems to be more winnable than ever. Again, as I said, they will use Hochul's strategy and scare the old-timers (like me) to death. But Romney's fighting against his own interest. Consider: He says he can fix the economy because of this business experience, but at the same time, refuses to allow anyone to look at the dollars & cents of his experience via his taxes! I am more and more certain that he's hiding something because the obvious course of action is to reveal them and put that argument to rest.

If Obama wins Florida, and it appears more likely now, he has the election. He can lose Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa and Nevada and he still wins the election because he will have Michigan, Pa, Minnesota, N. Mexico and all the other traditionally blue states. If Romney loses Fla, he's toast.

I agree with both of you. Edmonton? They have a glut of good young forwards to offer us.

Obama, for all the difficulty he's faced in four years, has really lucked out in this election. Think about it...the only serious competitor - John Huntsman - was dumped early in the primaries. The rest of the candidates were clowns and one of the biggest, and most unelectable, won. Romney then proceeds to shoot himself in the foot by refusing to release tax returns, making gaffs right and left, and being unable to relate to common people. Now he picks Ryan, one of the most radical advocates of their economic program. AND Ryan has the personal endorsement of G.W. Bush! This is like the perfect storm. In an election in which the incumbent would, nine times out of ten, lose the election because of the economy, Obama has lucked into a situation in which he can easily win! All he now has to do is follow Kathy Hochul's path to victory and make sure Bush's endorsement is in all of his advertising! At this point even I could run his campaign without a problem.

Berglund has been mentioned several times - at least by me. Problem is, St. Louis has no one to take his place. Therefore dream on. Now, if we added Adam to the mix...nah...still no deal. If you're going to trade with the Flyers, look at Voracek, Read, and Simmonds as targets. Briere wouldn't be good for reasons previously discussed. Voracek could be a real sleeper here. I'm projecting him to jump in points this year. Read has the talent we need with an upside, although more limited than Voracek's IMO. Simmonds is just a rough, dirty player. He provides the grit that Ott brings with more scoring ability.

I don't eat wings or fast food. So.... I'd recommend the Old Orchard Inn, The Roycroft, and Salvatores Italian Gardens (if you close your eyes or put on sunglasses to diminish the garish rococo decor). Overrated: Shimshacks

Why would the Sabres? Couturier is a player the Sabres wanted in last year's draft but didn't get. However I'm inclined to think that Myers would be at or near "untradeable" status. I was going to post about the Philly situation too, but obviously others beat me to the punch. Certainly it makes the Flyers a more likely trading partner but I'd still like to see a smaller deal than the Couturier/Myers proposal. More like Read/Leopold + Brennan.