Report: GOP Observors in Philly being Removed and Replaced with more Democrats.

[Born Free]

The idea that someone could make it to the voting area and still not have made up his or her mind, and that he or she might finally be swayed by a mural on the wall ... is a lot more disturbing to me

Why is that so disturbing? What you think people are so smart not to be swayed by an intimidating mural at a voting booth? You think all people know what they want to eat before they enter a restaurant. Hell no. Any suggestion of a mural to endorse any candidate is dead wrong at a voting booth, except to most liberals when it's them doing it. Just look at this thread.

 

[Deuce]

Why is that so disturbing? What you think people are so smart not to be swayed by an intimidating mural at a voting booth? You think all people know what they want to eat before they enter a restaurant. Hell no. Any suggestion of a mural to endorse any candidate is dead wrong at a voting booth, except to most liberals when it's them doing it. Just look at this thread.

Let me explain because you don't seem to get it.

Nobody is saying it's totally ok for the mural to be there. Clearly it should be covered. On the other hand, this is hardly some staggering, drastic effort at voter intimidation. In the realm of voter influence, this ranks somewhere around that of bumper stickers. "Dead wrong?" I guess if you consider an incorrectly-placed spoon at a fancy restaurant "dead wrong."

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

It dorms of who they will vote, I don't believe it change anyone's vote. I also think too many already were having emotional responses just looking at the ballot.

again, it doesn't matter if has a zero net impact, the important issue is that it has the potential to impact.

PS the ballot is a neutral list of names, sot something that casts a candidate in a positive light

 

[Boo Radley]

again, it doesn't matter if has a zero net impact, the important issue is that it has the potential to impact.

PS the ballot is a neutral list of names, sot something that casts a candidate in a positive light

Again,what is the potential? I don't see it.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Again,what is the potential? I don't see it.

just addressed this same question 2-3 posts back

 

[Boo Radley]

just addressed this same question 2-3 posts back

For it to have potential, we have to believe there is a real possible that it could effect someone. It seems more likely that in that community, that any pressure all comes from neighbors long before anyone saw a picture. And if some resisted that, no picture was ever going to make a dent. People vote where hey live. I see no potential of that picture to change one single vote, and suspect that community, the local response was amusement.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

For it to have potential, we have to believe there is a real possible that it could effect someone.

Nope, we just need to acknowledge that it presents one candidate in an unfair light, in relation to the other candidates. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what real world affects it actually has. Because the very idea is to allow the voter a neutral environment to make their final decision

 

[Boo Radley]

Nope, we just need to acknowledge that it presents one candidate in an unfair light, in relation to the other candidates. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what real world affects it actually has. Because the very idea is to allow the voter a neutral environment to make their final decision

I don't know. Might be the letter of the law, but in reality, it's a nothing concern. Not that type of picture in that neighborhood in that context.

 

[j-mac]

I don't know. Might be the letter of the law, but in reality, it's a nothing concern. Not that type of picture in that neighborhood in that context.

Following your logic it should also be just fine to have campaign commercials playing on a big screen while waiting in line to vote within the polling place right? :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

Following your logic it should also be just fine to have campaign commercials playing on a big screen while waiting in line to vote within the polling place right? :roll:

No, I think those are different. But still, even those, I doubt they would change anyone's mind. It seems to me your really has a low opinion of people. Kind of elitist isn't it?

:coffeepap

 

[j-mac]

No, I think those are different. But still, even those, I doubt they would change anyone's mind. It seems to me your really has a low opinion of people. Kind of elitist isn't it?

:coffeepap

Eh, maybe. But my opinion of people lays proven to me by the way this election turned out.

 

[Boo Radley]

Eh, maybe. But my opinion of people lays proven to me by the way this election turned out.

You know, remote as you think it is, you may be missing something concerning the election. Allow me to point out a few things you might not see clearly:

1) Romney was Obama light. At one time or another, he stated or said everything Obama ever has. Hard to be inspired by someone you who is nearly identical to the person you say is going to destroy the country. non partisans see the humor in this.

2) Running a country isn't the same as running a company. CEOs are responsible to stock holders. And while I know some like see citizens as stockholders, it doesn't work that way. Citizens are more comparable to workers. See where this might work against the CEO type candidate?

3) Most of the hyperbole you guys use is so far over the top, it becomes comical. And once it becomes silly, it loses all power. Too often you side simply went to far, and again, non partisans, largely ignore it.

And I have to say, if you really thought anything major would have changed under Romney, it is you who were mistaken. There would have at best been only minor changes. And while you think giving more breaks to the wealthy and business would help, the evidence simply isn't there. we've been cutting them for a long time now. And the result has been more part time jobs, off shoring, and less medical coverage. Yes, that will continue under Obama. Sadly. But the only change to even slow it down is with Obama. We needed a better discussion, more options (not in men but ideas), but on both sides the demonizing gets in the way of discourse. Not once did I say Romney want to lay of America workers. Not once have I said he wanted people to die. Not once did I call him evil. He is much like Obama, a human being with limited ideas and limited power to actually enact even those.

Tone it down. Help bring back reasonable discourse. The sky will not fall.

 

[j-mac]

You know, remote as you think it is, you may be missing something concerning the election. Allow me to point out a few things you might not see clearly:

1) Romney was Obama light. At one time or another, he stated or said everything Obama ever has. Hard to be inspired by someone you who is nearly identical to the person you say is going to destroy the country. non partisans see the humor in this.

We heard this narrative often from the Libertarians and contrarians amongst us during the campaign. Problem is that even if you think that there wasn't much different in their ideas, the fact of the matter is that there was, in that a progressive agenda moving America toward a global parity in punishing success, is not in my mind what Romney wanted to achieve.

2) Running a country isn't the same as running a company. CEOs are responsible to stock holders. And while I know some like see citizens as stockholders, it doesn't work that way. Citizens are more comparable to workers. See where this might work against the CEO type candidate?

Careful Joe, you are coming dangerously close to expressing tenants of Communism. I "CEO" type is exactly what this country needs to clean up the mess that is only to be compounded under another term of the borrow and spend policies of Obama.

3) Most of the hyperbole you guys use is so far over the top, it becomes comical. And once it becomes silly, it loses all power. Too often you side simply went to far, and again, non partisans, largely ignore it.

Oh please. And I suppose we are to believe that progressives like yourself only want to put forth a message of peace, love, and unicorns eh? Nah, what these so called "non partisan's" (if such even really exists anymore) reject are the exact one sided, finger pointing that you exhibit in this very post.

And I have to say, if you really thought anything major would have changed under Romney, it is you who were mistaken.

Much would have changed whether your opinion is different or not.

And while you think giving more breaks to the wealthy and business would help, the evidence simply isn't there.

Trying to convince people that the sky is orange by simply repeating the lie over, and over doesn't make it so.

We needed a better discussion, more options (not in men but ideas), but on both sides the demonizing gets in the way of discourse.

It is quite a fascinating to read just what kind of thought processes are in play under a progressive ideology that has run one of the dirtiest, most non substantial campaigns in history, try to tell the opponent that they should not fight back. I am sure you'd have loved that.

Not once did I say Romney want to lay of America workers. Not once have I said he wanted people to die. Not once did I call him evil.

Are you now the Obama campaign?

Tone it down. Help bring back reasonable discourse. The sky will not fall.

I'll follow your lead.

 

[Boo Radley]

We heard this narrative often from the Libertarians and contrarians amongst us during the campaign. Problem is that even if you think that there wasn't much different in their ideas, the fact of the matter is that there was, in that a progressive agenda moving America toward a global parity in punishing success, is not in my mind what Romney wanted to achieve.

I agre "in your mind." However, evidence and reality is not limted to your mind.

Careful Joe, you are coming dangerously close to expressing tenants of Communism. I "CEO" type is exactly what this country needs to clean up the mess that is only to be compounded under another term of the borrow and spend policies of Obama.

That's another error you side makes. You don't what words like communism actually mean. It hinders discourse.

Oh please. And I suppose we are to believe that progressives like yourself only want to put forth a message of peace, love, and unicorns eh? Nah, what these so called "non partisan's" (if such even really exists anymore) reject are the exact one sided, finger pointing that you exhibit in this very post.

Said nothing of that kind, which makes you comments a bit of strawman. Try addressing what I said.

Much would have changed whether your opinion is different or not.

No, it wouldn't. Sorry.

Trying to convince people that the sky is orange by simply repeating the lie over, and over doesn't make it so.

That's what I'm trying to tell you to stop. It got old.

It is quite a fascinating to read just what kind of thought processes are in play under a progressive ideology that has run one of the dirtiest, most non substantial campaigns in history, try to tell the opponent that they should not fight back. I am sure you'd have loved that.

You need to stop arguing with "progressive ideology" and address me. No one claimed Obama was pure as the driven snow. But he won. I'm trying to tell you why your message didn't play.

Are you now the Obama campaign

?

Hardly

I'll follow your lead.

You should. Read the things I never said again. And I never talked about conservative ideology, or steryeotyped conservatives, or made any of the hyperbolic claims you have. And while I can find worse than you, to be sure, you still misuses words like communism and socialism, as if those words had no actual meaning.

 

[j-mac]

I agre "in your mind." However, evidence and reality is not limted to your mind.

Really? That's it? That's all you got? How disappointing, reasonable discourse my ass.

 

[Boo Radley]

Really? That's it? That's all you got? How disappointing, reasonable discourse my ass.

Realx. I hadn't finished and hit the wrong button. I've told you I do a few things at once and sometimes misstep. Take a breath. Count to ten. Wait a few moments. :coffeepap

 

[j-mac]

Realx. I hadn't finished and hit the wrong button. I've told you I do a few things at once and sometimes misstep. Take a breath. Count to ten. Wait a few moments. :coffeepap

yeah, ok....Maybe you should focus on more pressing matters, I wouldn't want you sacrificing the quality of your job for a politics board.

 

[Boo Radley]

yeah, ok....Maybe you should focus on more pressing matters, I wouldn't want you sacrificing the quality of your job for a politics board.

I don't. But I finished. Feel free to continue.

 

[j-mac]

I agre "in your mind." However, evidence and reality is not limted to your mind.




That's another error you side makes. You don't what words like communism actually mean. It hinders discourse.




Said nothing of that kind, which makes you comments a bit of strawman. Try addressing what I said.



No, it wouldn't. Sorry.



That's what I'm trying to tell you to stop. It got old.




You need to stop arguing with "progressive ideology" and address me. No one claimed Obama was pure as the driven snow. But he won. I'm trying to tell you why your message didn't play.

?

Hardly



You should. Read the things I never said again. And I never talked about conservative ideology, or steryeotyped conservatives, or made any of the hyperbolic claims you have. And while I can find worse than you, to be sure, you still misuses words like communism and socialism, as if those words had no actual meaning.

So tell me what you mean when you say that citizens of America are more like "workers" than "shareholders"..... Allow me to remind you of what the citizenry was founded to be....

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

The Declaration of Independence - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You would do well not to forget this.

 

[Boo Radley]

So tell me what you mean when you say that citizens of America are more like "workers" than "shareholders"..... Allow me to remind you of what the citizenry was founded to be..

..

Very simple. CEOs answer to shareholders. These are owners. To the CEO, these would be people who pay him. As money is rampant in these elections, that would be those he had to fund raise from. That would be his natural inclination. We don't have a federal business. The US as a country, separate from the private sector, sells no widgets. None.

Citisens like worker are below that pecking order. Most didn't contribute huge sums of money. Most are not paying lobbyist. So, it would be hard for a CEO to see them as who he reports to.

You would do well not to forget this.

J, that's the message I keep giving you. We are the government.

 

[OpportunityCost]

..

Very simple. CEOs answer to shareholders. These are owners. To the CEO, these would be people who pay him. As money is rampant in these elections, that would be those he had to fund raise from. That would be his natural inclination. We don't have a federal business. The US as a country, separate from the private sector, sells no widgets. None.

Citisens like worker are below that pecking order. Most didn't contribute huge sums of money. Most are not paying lobbyist. So, it would be hard for a CEO to see them as who he reports to.



J, that's the message I keep giving you. We are the government.

So, Obama is the head of every Union? Cause those are his biggest supporters.

 

[Boo Radley]

So, Obama is the head of every Union? Cause those are his biggest supporters.

Well, at least that would be worker concerns. And frankly, today, unions have been stripped to the point of having far less impact than they used to. Remember, the government has been favorig wealthy and business for a long time now.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well, at least that would be worker concerns. And frankly, today, unions have been stripped to the point of having far less impact than they used to. Remember, the government has been favorig wealthy and business for a long time now.

You, and a lot of republicans for that matter, need to separate the idea of pro-business and pro-market.

Market forces are driven by free choices. Pro business choices tend to be driven by government restricting choices as a business proxy.

Conservatives need to re-message the difference between the two and not just talk about the two, but show that they understand the difference between the two and which they want to support. The establishment politicians on both sides are part of the problem in this respect.

 

[j-mac]

..

Very simple. CEOs answer to shareholders. These are owners. To the CEO, these would be people who pay him. As money is rampant in these elections, that would be those he had to fund raise from. That would be his natural inclination. We don't have a federal business. The US as a country, separate from the private sector, sells no widgets. None.

Man, this is one messed up way to view the country. As a CEO answers to shareholders, an elected official answers, or should answer to the people. Money in elections should be looked at, but separate from what a President is, or should be. I can actually agree that an election should be limited, and funded solely from a general fund that everyone contributes to through their taxes. But remember Obama cast that aside in favor of Palestinian collection centers that fraudulently sent money to Obama '08.

Citisens like worker are below that pecking order. Most didn't contribute huge sums of money. Most are not paying lobbyist. So, it would be hard for a CEO to see them as who he reports to.

Well, it's hard for liberals to see the average person as someone they represent when they look down their noses at them, like you do here.

J, that's the message I keep giving you. We are the government.

You have said that before yes, but you don't believe that at all. Considering what you have revealed in this post alone, I am surprised you could even type this with a straight face.

 

[haymarket]

Well, it's hard for liberals to see the average person as someone they represent when they look down their noses at them, like you do here.

Recognizing that the working class has been losing economic power over the last few decades and decrying the power imbalance due to the decline of unions IS NOT the same as looking down ones nose on workers. It is quite the opposite as it attempts to place on the table the true picture of the working class and contrast that with the often hollow platitudes and empty pontifications of conservatives and the right who only truly intend to use workers for their own fodder.

I find it amusing that over and over again what comes out from many on the right is that workers are smart, workers are resourceful,workers can take care of themselves..... and at the end of all those platitudes comes the conclusion that workers do not need unions getting them better wages and benefits and working conditions. And the whole time the crowd mouthing those self serving comments are looking to their quarterly profit statements with the belief that the union is the enemy of their own fat pocketbook.