Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 657 Comments

WHAT DO WE OWE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES?

"For a couple of hundred years, the idea of working for the government meant service to a higher cause. This was considered a greater reward than being paid on par with private sector workers. It was a matter of sacrificing personal gain for public service."

No. You are not distinguishing between public employment and public service. The guy who picks up your trash? He's not doing it because its a selfless way to honor and serve the community -- he's doing it because it's a job. He'd be doing it if the trash collection was run by GloboTrash LLC just as likely as he would be doing it if his paycheck is signed Springfield Municipal Sanitation.

"Already, the seams are bursting as some towns have been forced into insolvency as a result of public employee pension and health care plans."

Well clearly the problem is with the workers trying to get their healthcare needs met, and not with the health insurance companies charging too much. Stupid employees. Thank god we don't want National Health care! This is America, and in America you should be rewarded for working hard. If you aren't lazy, your health care insurance is covered by your job. OhMiGod! Look at these workers getting health insurance from their employer! Bastards.

I got that bit of conservative logic about right?

They are getting tax payer funded gold plated, above and beyond anything available to the people who are paying their salaries health insurance. It doesn't matter how much it costs because the taxpayer is paying for it, right? Do I have that bit of liberal logic about right?

And their defined contribution pension funds are totally and completely unecessary - breathtaking in their outright robbery of the taxpayer. Imagine having a pension where you received 80% of the salary you made for the last three years - and saw your salary triple over that time because of rules written in by powerful, out of control unions to guarantee that your pension did not reflect the first 20 years you were vested but rather the artificially inflated amount you got because politicians are terrified of your union?

A garbage collector is in service to the people as any other public employee is (most garbage is picked up by private companies like Waste Management now). Anyone who receives a salary courtesy of the taxpayer is in public service - despite your stupid, cynical, and ridiculous attempt to separate public employees from "public service." Taxpayers have every right to demand that their employees are not treated better than the taxpayers themselves.

You fail to address any of the questions I posed - all perfectly legitimate and absolutely vital to the future of this country - unless, as I suspect you might - want a state where government is the final arbiter of everything and "public employees" becomes a meaningless designation because we all will be working for the government.

ed.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.02.2010 @ 15:04

GOP A BIG LOSER AT CPAC

"#5 is the only sensible comment in this whole thread. The straw poll means squat."

Then everything Rick said and talked about must be completely untrue and/or irrevelant.

You've had your "All Libruls are teh stoopid" vomit for the week Travis. Now go stick your head back in the sand.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.02.2010 @ 23:48

"Since there seems - at the moment - to be little energy among the grass roots for a third party, that leaves them only one place to go."

That is only true if you accept an unstated assumption as true -- that the Tea Partiers are actually trying to win elections.

If the goal is to win a majority of the electorate, then for all their whining the Tea Party is going to have to allign themselves with the GOP. There is no other viable port in this particular storm. That is true.
However, if the goal is ideological purity, then fatally crippling the GOP and remaining the purist whack-a-doodle club is a perfectly acceptable option. When they lose every race, they can dress up in their Revolutionary costumes and assure each other its simply because the Bilderbergs have poisoned the minds of the populace, and the only thing that will awaken the trapped masses is another costumed march thru the town. They get all the pleasure of loudly complaining about the government and feeling smug, without any of the complication that would attend actually trying to fix the damned thing. The Tea Party will just become a social club, one that has as an unstated goal the removal of votes from the GOP, a "I'm taking my ball and going home" sort of vibe.

The other big problem that the Tea Party has is the inherent dichotomy in its makeup. You have an avowed hatred of politics-as-usual trying to use politics-as-usual to change things. Those that can't stomach getting their hands dirty simply stay in the background and complain, and those that are willing to play the game (suprise) do so for their own personal enrichment. Sub-parties splitting off, copyright battles, nebulous donation trees . . . why, its just how politics works, all right!

The Tea Party is alot like Communism: it's a GREAT idea . . . on paper. Applying political theory to the real world is an intricate, complicated, messy job. The pure theory will NOT make it thru into this world unscathed. Great theories make bad, bad action plans sometimes. Theory should guide your actions, not define them. Unfortunately, the Tea Party, having been fed on "pure" slogans, is (IMO) going to find it impossible to step back from "ideal" to "practical".

As CZ said above:

"Compromise is for quitters."

Politics without compromise. You know what that's called, CZ? A dictatorship. It's a politically worthless statement . . . but boy, does it tickle my "Win One For The Gipper / Ruuuuudy! Ruuuuuudy! Ruuuuuudy!" gland.
You know what else compromise is for? Getting things done. Exactly as the founding fathers planned and intended. As they explicitly spelled out in the Debates and the Federalist Papers.
That must be one of those "inconvienent" parts of Original Intent that Rick was talking about. Better just ignore it then.

Ruuuudy! Ruuuuudy! Ruuuuuudy!

. . . yeah, that's much better.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.02.2010 @ 17:15

FIREWORKS AT CPAC

"Are there gay haters who are liberal Democrats? Of this, I have no doubt. Given the amount of racism we’ve seen from 'tolerant' liberals, I am completely convinced that there are homophobes in the Democratic party and progressive movement as well.
. . .
The difference is, that kind of bigotry isn’t catered to as it is in the conservative movement and GOP so anti-gay liberals generally know enough to keep their mouths shut."

This.

Of course there are racist Liberals. And Homophobic liberals. And Paranoid liberals. And all the other stripes of lazy thinking. They are in all groups.

But the GOP actively and implicitly encourages it. That's a cancer for the movement, and the GOP can take one of three paths to dealing with it. They can aggressively and directly reject it (not their path of choice apparently). They can completely ignore it. Or, they can "what racism?" dodge the issue, making them look worse to everybody who's not in the GOP. Sadly, it seems like the body of the party has chosen option #3. Its a stupid handicap to inflict upon yourself, especially when you're trying to come from behind and make gains in the non-GOP population.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.02.2010 @ 00:58

HEY KIDS! LET'S JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE AUSTIN TERRORIST!

Chuck, now you're just being mean. She's new here -- she didn't know she couldn't just spout random bullsh!t and not get called on it around here.

Its okay Jenn. I mean sure, we're all laughing at you for being a mindless partisan hack, but at least you try to keep the nonsense on your own site, so kudos for that. Plus you get a bonus point for taking your blog tagline from Duke Nukem, so you're certainly doing better than most others around here.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.02.2010 @ 18:48

PALIN AND 'PATRIOT SPEAK'

Is it "authentic" that she's at NASCAR? Sure. Why not? Lots of people like NASCAR.

But is her being there authentic because she's went there as a NASCAR fan, or is it fake because she went there to plug her and the NASCAR demographic? Well, given that here comments sound completely engineered, thinking its engineered seems reasonable. Thinking that she's really a fan, but can't talk about something she's a fan about without breaking into prose, is just silly.
Let me ask it like this: As a gouvenor, maybe I like state fairs. Maybe I like other people's babies, erven like having my picture taken while I'm kissing other people's babies. Some people do. So me, as a campaigning gouvenor, going to State Fair and getting my picture taken kissing babies might just be totally spontaneous, not engineered to manipulate people for my political benefit at all.
Maybe. Could be. Or it could be the same standard manipulative political trick, the one so transparent its become the standard for a politician sucking up.
Think about how rediculous this is -- you believe she's being honest because she's an honest person, right? You know she's an honest person because she told you (you don't know her. you never met her for more than a meet-n-greet), So her saying things that sound like campaign speeches can't be campaign speeches, because she told you to believe her and that its not just campaign speeching.
So you trust her to tell you if she's lying. I'm sure if Romney went to Daytona he's say he really hates this whole car racing thingy, its so dirty and all, but he figured he had to put in some facetime. Yeah, I'm sure that's what he'd say.
The worst thing is . . . .Romney would say something that actually made you think he really liked it.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.02.2010 @ 00:57

@narciso:

"She was describing the event, they were some off the cuff remarks, she wasn’t talking about herself."

That's where you are right and wrong. This may fit the liter definition of "off the cuff" (not prepared) remarks:

"I’m thinking about this good, active, speed-loving event that a lot of Alaskans, too, are really into."

as she's clearly Mad-Libing a pre-selected list of buzzwords (good, active,speed-loving). Hell, she used "speed-loving" in each sentence. Her words were prepared -- the actual sentence was spontaneous.

And she literally didn't talk about herself since she never said hyer own name, but she did say "Alaskans" and "we" explicitly 5 times in two sentences, and implicity at least twice more.

Just being spontaneous and not talking about herself? Could'a fooled me.

But she wasn't talking about herself, or delivering canned GOP soundbites. No sir -- she's totally not a politician. She's so real and just talking her mind. In fact, I've had this exact same conversation with my friends sitting around and talking NASCAR, so it feels so natural and not "fake politician" at all. We all refer to Nascar as that "good, active, breath-taking, speed-living slice of Americana". Usually around the fifth beer. That's about as "political establishment" as a photo of you kissing a baby at the State Fair.

I have real trouble believing you actually believe conversations like that are "real" as opposed to the same "politician-speak" that every single politician has done since the dawn of politics. By definition that's not being "unapolegetic".

btw . . . "unapolegetic"? That's one of those buzzwords too.

@manning:

"I will not vote for Obama/Biden, regardless of the invectives against Palin."

Fair enough. My vote in 08 was a "not vote for zombie McCain and Palin" democratic vote (as it will be in '12 if she gets on). Sometimes, for whatever reason, people end up on your "no" list. If Obama is on your "no regardless of what he says or does" list then our two votes are pretty settled even at this early point (again, assuming Palin runs/gets on ticket).
If I were a betting man, I'd put a few bucks on "Romney not outracing Palin" but just because I assume the majority of any large group is stupid. On paper, Romney may be the more qualified candidate -- but is that sort of common sense logic really what guides a majority of votes? Sadly, I suspect not. On this one though, I would love to be proven wrong.

@still liberal:

"Larry the Cable Guy had about 30,000 people show up for a comedy show at the University of Nebraska. Does this amazing fact now allow him to run for President, or that his political musings gain importance?"

President? Probably not. Gouvenor? I could see it.
His musings gaining importance? What do you think would happen if Larry The Cable Guy wrote a book of political reflections? You think that crowd of 30,000 might buy one or two? Multiplied by a hundred shows across the country?

That's why (like I told Manning above), I personally think Sarah The Cable Gal wins against Romney, just because "I like this fictional character because they are so real" seems like an acceptable way to live your life nowadays.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.02.2010 @ 15:35

To add to B'ham and Rick's observations, self-applying those designations is in most cases proof that the labels don't apply.

What Palin needs to "improve" her P-speak is to indulge in a little moderation. It seems like just about every comment out of her is chock-full-O-nuts with buzzwords and trigger phrases. It makes the dialogue sound absolutely forced, since nobody talks like that in the real world. If you are going to have brightly-painted oratory, either have it in a formal setting like a convention speech (where such language is somewhat expected) or you have to build to it, as if the emotion and passion slowly (and naturally) built up inside you over the course of the conversation.
By making every utterance a speech, she emphasises the perception (correct or not) that she doesn't really have anything to say except pre-arranged talking points. It sounds far too forced -- and by definition forced implies it isn't genuine or natural.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.02.2010 @ 13:05

PAUL RYAN'S LONELY VOICE

@BertLoftman:

" I would honor the constitution on things like the Federal government imposing its big government values on our children."

What does this mean? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government cannot its Big Government values on our children?

*sigh* why am I even asking? I'm sure you'll proudly proclaim "The 10th Amendment" and then tell me it says all sorts of things that it doesn't say. Then you'll switch to what the founding fathers really meant when they wrote it and you'll ignore all of the other viewpoints of the founding fathers (because they were all in 100% total and absolute agreement, as we all know). Then you'll segue into "protect liberty, fight tyrany and socialism, save the children", and other meaningless catchphrases. Then you'll fade away.

Like this hasn't happened around here a couple of billion times already . . .

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.02.2010 @ 18:51

@inmuypajamas:

"a homosexual sexual slur"

If you are referring to "teabaggers", its not a homosexual thing -- its a sex thing, something both hetero and homosexuals can exgage in.

But please, assume you're being called gay in a comment decrying accusations of your subconcious bigotry. Really, really, drives your point home.

To all the "Dems blocked Civil Rights legislation" comments:

Can we pick a standard here? First you attacked Richard for bringing up historical sins of the past -- "blaming the GOP for past generations". Now we're bringing up the Civil Rights Era? Either its off limits, or its fair game, for both sides.

And to the "well the Democrats were segregationalists in the era" comments:

On paper, yes. George Wallace was a Democrat. But is there anybody in this thread (or on the planet earth) that is saying that if Wallace were alive today he would be a Democrat and not a Republican? Or to put it another way, was he (and other pro-segregationalists) Conservative or Liberal?
The "identity" of the parties does change over time, over generations. The fact that he had a donkey lapel pin and not an elephant lapel pin doesn't change that he was from the Conservative camp (pretty much by definition). The fact that the Democratic Party today is generally considered "Liberal" or "Progressive" has no bearing on what it has been in the past, or will be in the future.
And given the levels of political history people here seem to be schooled in . . . I think everybody here knows that. They just seem ot forget it when it is convenient for them.

Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.02.2010 @ 18:46


 


Next page »


Pages (66) : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66


«« Back To Stats Page