A Man Amongst Men [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

NJ Stinks

08-19-2009, 09:26 PM

No way I'm gonna let this go by.

Barney Frank is the man! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Lots to love if you are into passing HR Resolution 3200 and the public health insurance option. And lots to love if you disdain the BS from the right! Barney beat back the silliness like the professor he is.

This morning when Mike McConnell first said he was gonna play exerpts of Franks' town hall meeting last night, I was thinking "Uh-oh. This can't be good." Wrong. It was terrific! But forget the Nazi lady and her foolishness. My favorite part was this:

When the young guy stood up and said it would be people like the young guy who would have to pay the tab for the irresponsible spending Frank was endorsing. Barney asked the guy where he was when the U.S. decided to spend a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq - a war Frank was against from Day 1. "Who do you think is going to have pay for that?", Frank asked the guy. The young guy responded that he wasn't talking about the war - but definitely lost his arrogant tone when he said it.

It's about time Dems started to fight back! And it's fitting that the first big shot was fired by a Democrat in Massachusetts! :cool:

ezrabrooks

08-19-2009, 09:42 PM

"A Man Amongst Men"....Hey NJ..you sure you want to go with that one? I guess that is where Barney wants to be..

Ez

Greyfox

08-19-2009, 09:48 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FxwAAcmkxpk/SXtYIg16k8I/AAAAAAAAAfQ/ChGgcONZkDM/s400/barney+frank.jpg.

NJ Stinks

08-19-2009, 09:53 PM

"A Man Amongst Men"....Hey NJ..you sure you want to go with that one? I guess that is where Barney wants to be..

Ez

Those words were carefully chosen, Ezra. :)

bigmack

08-19-2009, 09:54 PM

When the young guy stood up and said it would be people like the young guy who would have to pay the tab for the irresponsible spending Frank was endorsing. Barney asked the guy where he was when the U.S. decided to spend a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq - a war Frank was against from Day 1. "Who do you think is going to have pay for that?", Frank asked the guy. The young guy responded that he wasn't talking about the war - but definitely lost his arrogant tone when he said it.
You're delusional. Both you & he obfuscate the issue with Iraq. What an eyeopener.

Should we obscure further the issue at hand by talking about Freddie, Fanny & Barney?

ArlJim78

08-19-2009, 10:00 PM

Frank is an utter disgrace and an embarrassment to the nation.
typical non answer and avoiding the question of the young man.

Tom

08-19-2009, 10:02 PM

Frank is an embarrassment to humanity.

NJ Stinks

08-19-2009, 10:13 PM

You're delusional. Both you & he obfuscate the issue with Iraq. What an eyeopener.

Should we obscure further the issue at hand by talking about Freddie, Fanny & Barney?

BigMack, you don't see the connection because you don't want to. It matters not to me if do or you don't.

But I'll spell it out again just because it's true. I and my fellow liberals prefer we pay for universal health care for all Americans and conservatives prefer we pay for freedom for all Iraqi's. Hope that's not too confusing for you.

bigmack

08-19-2009, 10:29 PM

BigMack, you don't see the connection because you don't want to. It matters not to me if do or you don't.
The fact is that there is no connection. You & Barn are using Iraq to apple/orange Fed spending. Let alone, a sound argument could easily be made to outline a number of legislative decisions Barney has been integral in that cost us plenty. You're just riding his coat tails 'cause he uses the Iraq non-argument. Good luck with that.

Kinda sounds like a kid saying he wants something expensive because the parents bought something expensive for his brother/sister.

exactaplayer

08-19-2009, 10:37 PM

Frank is in close contention with Michael Moore for America's hero award. Those guys are really doing what America needs done.

dartman51

08-20-2009, 12:10 AM

Frank is in close contention with Michael Moore for America's hero award. Those guys are really doing what America needs done.

Yeah, maybe they can have a LOVE CHILD together. :jump:

Tom

08-20-2009, 12:34 AM

Frank is in close contention with Michael Moore for America's hero award. Those guys are really doing what America needs done.

Lying, destroying the housing market, being generally ugly?
We need MM and BF like we need cancer.

DJofSD

08-20-2009, 12:41 AM

NJ Stinks

08-20-2009, 01:38 AM

So, I guess the lesson is that two wrongs do make a right? Or is it OK to throw good money after bad as long as a liberal is doing the spending?

No. The lessons are these:

1) Liberals are willing to spend money to help fellow Americans (i.e. health care). Conservatives are willing to spend money to help Iraqi's for crying out loud but not Americans who can't afford decent health care.

2. Liberals are willing to raise taxes to help fellow Americans with health care. Conservatives were and are willing to spend money on Iraqi's but won't raise taxes to pay for it. In fact, not only did Conservatives not raise taxes, they came up with the brilliant idea of cutting taxes instead.

If I've got my facts wrong, I'm sure you will set me straight, DJ. Good luck.

boxcar

08-20-2009, 01:56 AM

No. The lessons are these:

1) Liberals are willing to spend money to help fellow Americans (i.e. health care). Conservatives are willing to spend money to help Iraqi's for crying out loud but not Americans who can't afford decent health care.

2. Liberals are willing to raise taxes to help fellow Americans with health care. Conservatives were and are willing to spend money on Iraqi's but won't raise taxes to pay for it. In fact, not only did Conservatives not raise taxes, they came up with the brilliant idea of cutting taxes instead.

If I've got my facts wrong, I'm sure you will set me straight, DJ. Good luck.

Your facts are wrong coming right out of the chute. Liberals are willing to force TAXPAYERS to spend THEIR hard earned money to help who????? -- specifically, who? Well, when it comes down to it, we don't know who nor can we. But probably an awful lot of people who don't pay taxes would be a good educated guess. So, liberals are willing to ROB Peter to PAY Paul. They're willing to redistribute some of the fruits of Peter's labors to pay Paul who ain't laborin' so hard for one reason or another. And this little scheme makes Paul very beholdin' to the liberals who are responsible for Paul's slightly better lot in life, doesn't it? In other words, Paul really gets to like the fact that he doesn't have to be the thug to go out to rob Peter -- not when he can vote the thugs in office and get them from DC to do it for him.

Anything you don't understand about this, please...don't hesitate to ask.

Boxcar
P.S. And I would dearly love for you to ask me why I don't believe government is this benevolent, altruistic institution that always has the people's best interest at the center of its dark, evil little heart.

DJofSD

08-20-2009, 01:59 AM

NJ: You confuse facts with opinions.

However, I will agree that not paying for the war in the middle east is a mistake.

Spending money you don't have is not a liberal or a conservative issue. What lies are told and the rationalizations behind them is where the biases are found.

PaceAdvantage

08-20-2009, 03:07 AM

Tom

08-20-2009, 07:11 AM

Hey NJ, you do know we are still spending all the money over there, right?
You know liberals are singing the checks, right?
You know they are planning on spending more as we increase troop levels, right?

lsbets

08-20-2009, 07:18 AM

Barney Frank has to be one of the biggest idiots in Congress, but I give him cwedit for being willing to get out there and speak his mind. I see him on Fox News on a pretty regular basis. Wait, that can't be, according to some here, Fox doesn't allow libewals on the network.

jballscalls

08-20-2009, 12:05 PM

Your facts are wrong coming right out of the chute. Liberals are willing to force TAXPAYERS to spend THEIR hard earned money to help who????? -- specifically, who? Well, when it comes down to it, we don't know who nor can we. But probably an awful lot of people who don't pay taxes would be a good educated guess. So, liberals are willing to ROB Peter to PAY Paul. They're willing to redistribute some of the fruits of Peter's labors to pay Paul who ain't laborin' so hard for one reason or another. And this little scheme makes Paul very beholdin' to the liberals who are responsible for Paul's slightly better lot in life, doesn't it? In other words, Paul really gets to like the fact that he doesn't have to be the thug to go out to rob Peter -- not when he can vote the thugs in office and get them from DC to do it for him.

Anything you don't understand about this, please...don't hesitate to ask.

Boxcar
P.S. And I would dearly love for you to ask me why I don't believe government is this benevolent, altruistic institution that always has the people's best interest at the center of its dark, evil little heart.

random question. You say they take from Peter to help Paul. And that is true. But as a taxpayer I have no problem helping people who are struggling and need help, temporarily. Temporarily being the key word. When i talk to some conservatives, they don't want to help anyone ever when it comes to any assistance.

It's so expensive to live here in America, that a huge chunk of people live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose their job because of cutbacks or a reason not of their own volition, should they not get some temporary help while they look for a job?? I would hope so, the last thing we need here is children whose parents can't feed them. Now that would be a sad America to live in.

As someone who makes a good living and has some decent savings, i surely don't mind paying to help those who aren't as fortunate as me. My roomate was laid off a few months ago, and she's picking up any little odd jobs she can, but unemployment is like 12% in portland, and there just aren't many jobs. So without unemployment she'd be out in the street, i'm happy to pay an extra 4 bucks a week to help people like her to get on their feet.

Just my opinion. I still don't like Obama though

JustRalph

08-20-2009, 04:15 PM

libewals on the network.
:lol: :lol:

Warren Henry

08-21-2009, 01:09 AM

But, how come the actual taxpayers who vote liberal don't realize that the leadership is proposing rules for the peons but not for themselves. Many of the big name liberals who seem to champion the cause of the downtrodden do not personally lift a finger to improve the lives of any of those downtrodden. How many of his poor relatives does Obama actually help? How much taxes to the Kennedy family members actually pay. Many of the liberal blue bloods are from old money families. Their money is locked away in trusts or foundations where it can not be taxed. They draw salaries as employees of the trusts but their real wealth is never exposed to taxes.

Many of the laws and especially tax laws are deliberately written to favor those who made the laws. Ever wonder why it is that we can get tax benefits from ownership of two houses. Think about it for a minute. What group of folks need to have two houses - hint, one in the vicinity of Washington, DC and one in the district or state they are elected to represent. Gee, do you think that is a coincidence? But, I bet they claimed that this benefit would be good for the commoner when they passed it.

Exempting themselves from the proposed health care reform is typical of the double dealing that they practice. They spout on about helping the disadvantaged because it "feels good", but they don't actually care a whit for the disadvantaged or they would actually do something to help them or propose a system good enough for everyone, not just the other guys.

So many of our problems in society today were originally caused by stupid laws passed by liberals to "help" the folks who were not as well off. Consider for a moment the Aid for Dependent Children program. Great cause, right? Who can be against helping a mom support and care for her kids. Not the kids fault that they were born into their situation. However, that program would not pay if there was an adult male in the household. So the inner city guy lived somewhere else. He did not need nor was he wanted to take any responsibility for his children. They were better off it he wasn't around. In the meantime, the only way for the mom to improve her situation was to have another child which would increase her benefits. Naturally, their families increased in size so that there were more dependent children. These kids grew up in broken families with no responsible male influence. Gee, wonder why so many of the males grew up to be thugs and the females grew up to be welfare mothers.

And, a welfare system that takes away benefits from someone who tries to improve his/her lot by working is totally flawed. I say it is deliberate as the congressional slum creaters actually want this large group of citizens to feel beholden to them. The downtrodden must support the poverty pimps or risk losing their ability to survive. Why does no one actually try to help them to learn and work their way to a better life.

End of rant (at least for now :) )

Pell Mell

08-21-2009, 05:05 AM

Statistics show that republicans donate more to charity then dems, but dems are very generous with someone else's money.:bang:

newtothegame

08-21-2009, 05:33 AM

random question. You say they take from Peter to help Paul. And that is true. But as a taxpayer I have no problem helping people who are struggling and need help, temporarily. Temporarily being the key word. When i talk to some conservatives, they don't want to help anyone ever when it comes to any assistance.

It's so expensive to live here in America, that a huge chunk of people live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose their job because of cutbacks or a reason not of their own volition, should they not get some temporary help while they look for a job?? I would hope so, the last thing we need here is children whose parents can't feed them. Now that would be a sad America to live in.

As someone who makes a good living and has some decent savings, i surely don't mind paying to help those who aren't as fortunate as me. My roomate was laid off a few months ago, and she's picking up any little odd jobs she can, but unemployment is like 12% in portland, and there just aren't many jobs. So without unemployment she'd be out in the street, i'm happy to pay an extra 4 bucks a week to help people like her to get on their feet.

Just my opinion. I still don't like Obama though

Jb...if I may, I have a question. Define temporary. In your above post you say that you dont mind helping someone for a "temporary" amount of time.
And as for conservatives not wanting to help those less fortunate, I would suggest you check your facts.
You can easily google this and find that republicans and conservatives donate more then democrats. So I am not exactly sure where your coming from.
What I do think is your trying to see it from a perspective. I will agree that there is nothing wrong in helping people who need a help up. But there is a huge difference between a hand up and a hand out. That is the area where I think you see the conservatives unwilling to help. I live just outside of new orleans. I would think based on numbers I have heard and seen that there is a large population here which is DEPENDENT on social programs. I also REGULARLY see many of these people who are dependent on the system selling their "assistance" such as food stamps, wick cards etc etc for cash. Why? Let me help there too....DRUGS. I, as a conservative have a huge problem with this so therefore I must be cruel and heartless cause I am against helping those people...right?
I know there is a population out there that needs real help. To those people, I am all for helping. Hell pass the jar my way and I will drop in the first hundred. But, for my generosity, all I ask for is some monitoring to ensure that my money is being used properly.
Here are a few ideas....if you are going to be dependent on social programs how about be willing to submit to drug screening?
How about some job assistance and placement programs? Getting a card signed by some guy down the street saying you went there is not "looking for a job". There are several things that can happen. I think that it needs to be made "tough" if you are on social programs. The idea here being that if its tough, people will WANT TO GET OFF of them vs WANTING TO BE ON them.
I would also add that there would be a defined timeline for assistance. Just look no further then here in southern Louisiana and you will find people still living in fema supplied trailers from hurricane Katrina. That was almost FOUR years ago. Im sorry.....but thats way to long. Not to mention I have a hard enough time on vacation in a travel trailer much less living in one for four years.
I guess my point is its ok to be compassionate as you seem to be seeing the pain and sorrow in alot of peoples lives. Those who truly want to work and live a good life. Problem is there is another side to that story as well. We need to seperate the good from the bad. Do this, and I would imagine you would have all of america wanting to help...not just conservatives, liberals, or whatever.

jballscalls

08-21-2009, 11:00 AM

I guess my point is its ok to be compassionate as you seem to be seeing the pain and sorrow in alot of peoples lives. Those who truly want to work and live a good life. Problem is there is another side to that story as well. We need to seperate the good from the bad. Do this, and I would imagine you would have all of america wanting to help...not just conservatives, liberals, or whatever.

I agree with most everything you said. Just seems in my experience most liberals i talk to think everyone who has a bad lot in life it wasn't there fault and need help, and many conservatives i talk to think everyone who is in a tough spot chose to be that way by being lazy or on drugs, etc.

there is a middle ground, the key i guess is figuring out how to police the programs and not let them be abused.

DJofSD

08-21-2009, 11:11 AM

there is a middle ground, the key i guess is figuring out how to police the programs and not let them be abused.Right.

So how come BF won't quit is current medical insurance provided to elected officials and join the POS they're trying to ram down our throats? Seems to me a good way to police the abuse of a program is to be subjected to its day to day realities both good and bad.

boxcar

08-21-2009, 12:00 PM

random question. You say they take from Peter to help Paul. And that is true. But as a taxpayer I have no problem helping people who are struggling and need help, temporarily. Temporarily being the key word. When i talk to some conservatives, they don't want to help anyone ever when it comes to any assistance.

It's so expensive to live here in America, that a huge chunk of people live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose their job because of cutbacks or a reason not of their own volition, should they not get some temporary help while they look for a job?? I would hope so, the last thing we need here is children whose parents can't feed them. Now that would be a sad America to live in.

As someone who makes a good living and has some decent savings, i surely don't mind paying to help those who aren't as fortunate as me. My roomate was laid off a few months ago, and she's picking up any little odd jobs she can, but unemployment is like 12% in portland, and there just aren't many jobs. So without unemployment she'd be out in the street, i'm happy to pay an extra 4 bucks a week to help people like her to get on their feet.

Just my opinion. I still don't like Obama though

I am not against helping people. Virtually everyone in life needs a helping hand occasionally. But two things: This health care scam will not be temporary, no more than is Social Security. And secondly, as I've said elsewhere, I am a firm believer in the old adage that says, "Charity begins at home". There is a lot of wisdom in this because the closer the recipients of aid are to the source of it, the less bureaucracy, the better control over the expenditure of taxpayer money there will be, and the more likely it will be that locals will actually be in a better position to help other locals to get out of the bad situations in which they find themselves. People should help people; and not some nameless, faceless government who in turn treats other faceless human beings as mere numbers on a computer printout.
Let the states, counties and municipalities take care of their own and keep the federal government out of the picture.

And last but not least by any means, the U.S. government is NOT this virtuous, altruistic, benevolent force for GOOD. I repeat: It is NOT! Liberals who believe this are dangerously naive. As stated previously, all governments naturally gravitate toward despotism, which more often than not finds its expression through oligarchies. And this, sir, is precisely what is happening right under our noses in America -- right now, as we speak.
The singular objective of virtually all politicians is to make a career out of politics. And it takes money, power and favors to do this; and this money and power and favors come at the expense of The People -- at the terrible expense of our individual liberties. This, sir, is the reason I distrust government and this distrust is as natural to me as it is for government to abuse its power.

Boxcar

ddog

08-21-2009, 01:39 PM

Jb...if I may, I have a question. Define temporary. In your above post you say that you dont mind helping someone for a "temporary" amount of time.
And as for conservatives not wanting to help those less fortunate, I would suggest you check your facts.
You can easily google this and find that republicans and conservatives donate more then democrats. So I am not exactly sure where your coming from.
What I do think is your trying to see it from a perspective. I will agree that there is nothing wrong in helping people who need a help up. But there is a huge difference between a hand up and a hand out. That is the area where I think you see the conservatives unwilling to help. I live just outside of new orleans. I would think based on numbers I have heard and seen that there is a large population here which is DEPENDENT on social programs. I also REGULARLY see many of these people who are dependent on the system selling their "assistance" such as food stamps, wick cards etc etc for cash. Why? Let me help there too....DRUGS. I, as a conservative have a huge problem with this so therefore I must be cruel and heartless cause I am against helping those people...right?
I know there is a population out there that needs real help. To those people, I am all for helping. Hell pass the jar my way and I will drop in the first hundred. But, for my generosity, all I ask for is some monitoring to ensure that my money is being used properly.
Here are a few ideas....if you are going to be dependent on social programs how about be willing to submit to drug screening?
How about some job assistance and placement programs? Getting a card signed by some guy down the street saying you went there is not "looking for a job". There are several things that can happen. I think that it needs to be made "tough" if you are on social programs. The idea here being that if its tough, people will WANT TO GET OFF of them vs WANTING TO BE ON them.
I would also add that there would be a defined timeline for assistance. Just look no further then here in southern Louisiana and you will find people still living in fema supplied trailers from hurricane Katrina. That was almost FOUR years ago. Im sorry.....but thats way to long. Not to mention I have a hard enough time on vacation in a travel trailer much less living in one for four years.
I guess my point is its ok to be compassionate as you seem to be seeing the pain and sorrow in alot of peoples lives. Those who truly want to work and live a good life. Problem is there is another side to that story as well. We need to seperate the good from the bad. Do this, and I would imagine you would have all of america wanting to help...not just conservatives, liberals, or whatever.

OK. let's accept YOUR experience that DRUGS are THE ISSUE.

What would DRUGS cost without a WAR on drugs?
Who would be the biggest loser if the WAR went away?
Has the WAR resulted in reduced drug usage/reduced gvt benefits?
Name one of these WARs that has kept people from doing or attempting to do what they want to do?
War on poverty??? if the gvt is not capable of doing much right , why would you want to fund them in a WAR on drugs in this country.

Did the country survive and in fact PROSPER before this WAR was started?

Which DRUGS are you saying are the problem?

Many conservatives are locked in a moral view of the world which they seek to impose on others. It doesn't work.

You have to deal with what is there. You are paying some small amount of your money for protection/silence/safety.

It's as simple as that. People, even THOSE people are not going to sit around and starve. They are NOT going to find jobs. The "tougher" you make it , the more crime you will have.
The system doesn't work for a vast number of people anymore, morals don't have anymore to do with why the bottom is that way than they do with why those at the top make it.

I am more of the opinion that given the graft and dishonesty shown by those who do make it , that the best course is to opt out. So, why would those who were never in , now wish to opt in?

I don't blame them at all anymore. Whatever they can get away with , take it, just like the rest.

DJofSD

08-21-2009, 01:54 PM

Ya, right, the tougher you make it the more crime we'll have. BS. What was the crime rate in the late 1920's and 1930's?