|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Come on. You know what I meant. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
I do indeed.
However, the government is growing as far as an employer. That's scary ... because it takes money out of the private sector to pay for public sector jobs added.
Just imagine if Obamacare would have passed with a public option. Imagine if Cap and Trade would have passed. That would have added thousands and thousands of federal positions for administration/inspection/enforcement. Scary stuff there.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
What, exactly, do you feel is the difference between the public and the private sector?
I see the same thing ... large quantities of wealth controlled by a select few, who shed just enough to the rest to make them feel comfortable in their position.
It would be nice, of course, if the private sector represented what many think it does ... I could get behind that ideal.
But I see that as a myth -- no different than those who think the public sector is benevolent, fair and will help them grow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
I am the federal government.
Let's say that I want to hire someone to clean up trash in a small federal park.
I cannot hire one person, because federal rules would likely preclude hiring one person working 8 hours/day picking up trash, as this would leave the park unattended for many other hours, and create a trash backlog which would unfairly impact the employee when he returned to work from a day off. So .... I have to create a committee to decide what is the appropriate number of employees "necessary" for completion of the work.
The committee head puts together a budget, and hires consultants.
The committee then commissions studies of other park systems, federal, state, and local. They establish a "best practices" guideline, and parameters for the job. They also create a structure for responsibilities of the job.
Once this is done, they create a structure for supervisory control of the position. They may recommend someone to supervise and schedule the employees handling the picking up of trash. They will then look at union scale for the jobs. 1 supervisor and say 6 employees .... and now you are on your way.
Oh ... and we need an office, secretary, someone to handle payroll for the new office, etc.
Now let's say that I am a private employer. I need someone to pick up trash around my industrial complex 5 days/week, 8 hours/day.
I want to hire someone who will do a good job, so I hire a 40 year old, out of work family man and pay him $20/hour.
Which senario is less likely? Which senario costs more? Which one would cost taxpayers less, if either could be done as listed?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Again, I'll cite the ideal, and not the reality ... what you've typed sounds like a brainless chain e-mail sent for petty guffaws (not to call you brainless).
Do you honestly not know folks who work in the private sector who have ridiculous jobs that are completely useless?
Committee to Plan Planning? Consultants?
Hell, I can cite several private sector employers I've had where -- a) there were a litany of employees who had no practical purpose in that position or b) I was one of those people.
Hell, I can't count how many friends in the private sector have jobs that are exactly what you've described above as part of the public sector.
To pretend that either side isn't entirely cluttered with useless bureaucracy is shortsighted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
The problem is that, while business does sometimes follow the same inane and exaggerated structure I laid out, they don't do it every time they hire someone for a new position.
Government does follow a similar structure on every hire for a new position.
Business "can" see a need, and add a new person to their employment without a lengthy, drawn out, and expensive exploratory process. Government truly cannot. They need to have to reports and such that somehow justify the taxpayer money they are spending ...... which often increase the taxpayer money they are spending. It is a never ending cycle.
Do you truly think that the public sector can employ anyone for less overall cost than the private sector can?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
In the end, it depends on the type of business you're talking about ...
Businesses who are much larger tend to operate like the government ... hence the term bureaucracy.
Your larger companies? No, I believe they're about on par with government ... especially the ones subsidized by government. Subsidizing means a heck of a lot ... when you're not paying for it? Hell, hire a Committee to Plan to Plan Planning (and many, many large private employers do so).
Hence the need for smaller government ... an idea that I'm completely in agreement with ... as I know you are ... however, you believe in candidates who promise that, whereas I don't ... because in the end, they're working for the same bloated company.
We need to deconstruct, not replace cogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
The bottom line though, is that business has to make money. They cannot forever borrow and borrow and borrow without paying it back. The danger in thinking that they can is the "Too big to fail" mindset that popped up during the banking and GM/Chrisler "crisis".
Given that business has to make money at some level, they have to make more decision that lead to making money than decisions that lead to losing money. Businesses may have waste and wasteful practices, but they have to control that waste and those practices or they will not remain in business. They may have a wasteful executive, or division, but in the end, those generally get weeded out for the financial good of the company.
Government does not have that incentive or constraint. If they need more money, they print it or take it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Right ... however ...
... many businesses (the ones I talk about when I talk about big business), have pretty much the same luxury as government.
Example -- I once worked for a network owned by a large energy company. Not hard to guess.
Our little show, one of many, many, many shows ... were allotted about $10k in petty cash per day (staff lunch, staff dinner, general errands, car services, etc., etc.). If we didn't spend that money, it would reflect poorly in our favor come yearly review time. So the idea became to spend that money .. even when we didn't have to. Because otherwise we'd lose it at year's end.
Sounds familiar? Sound like a sound business plan?
The only difference between gov't and private business is the resource allotment ... once those things are on par ... public and private sectors behave exactly the same.
My company at the time benefited from the same things as the gov't did/does -- wars, international affairs, subsidies, tax dollars ...
... it's all the same, man.
You're a bright guy ... but you're arguing rhetoric. IMO, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
However, not every business in America does that. In fact, I would guess that only a very few do.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
However, not every business in America does that. In fact, I would guess that only a very few do.
Every private employer/employee, like every public employer/employee, gets away with what it can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Maybe,, and that would have been terrific, But what if GM and Chrysler went belly up and there wasn't any money to get for investors?
First off...GM and Chrysler were NOT going belly up(ie. closing down) they were going into bankruptcy....you should know the difference. They were restructuring those companies...not closing them down......and the only thing that the government bailout did was give the Government control of the the bankruptcy process. It did not help the companies hold on longer or avoid the bankruptcy all together....Second of all the money from the break off and sale of assets that should have gone to the investors was stolen by the current administration and given in kickback form to the Unions.
Quote:
What about 200,000 people at GM alone that would have been thrown out of work while a new company was formed and financed.
And how is that different from what happened???? some were laid off.....some stayed to work for GM and Chrysler...again...these companies were not shutting down....they were going into bankruptcy in order to restructure.
Quote:
What about the Vendors of GM alone that would have been thrown out of business through no fault of thier own other then they were owed money by GM?
They might have had more companies with which to vendor to to make up their losses.
Quote:
What about all the GM Dealers that wouldn't have any product to sell,, how many employees is that.
You mean all of those GM Dealerships that they closed ANYWAY????
I get your drift....but you don't seem to get mine......The only thing the Government bailout of the auto companies accomplished was a kickback to the Unions......you are concerned about all those people that you had mentioned.....What about all those thousands and thousands of people who owned stock who lost EVERYTHING?????
And I understand what you are saying about how bad it could have been....BUT.......we have to STOP trying to ease the pain for everything and take a hit once in a while because while the hit might hurt bad...it won't last very long, but when we continually try to ease the pain all we do is inflate that bubble and we get into the messes we are getting in now that are far worse than they were before.....You might say ...how can what is going on now with GM and Chrysler end up making things worse than if we had let them fail???? Well when we were getting low interest mortgages and did not have to put a lot of money down....and home ownership was appraoching all time highs....we didn't think that was such a bad thing either did we????
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
The "experts" who say it would have been worse than the Great Depression are ignoring the fact that there is now an FDIC and Unemployment Insurance, among other things. This makes me pretty much discount those opinions.
Yeah, and the FDIC and Unemployment don't stop foreclosures and plant closings..
Unemployment insurance keeps a person afloat for a while, but it's not the end all be all you must think it is.. and it doesn't (although lately it feels that way) last forever,.,
Bottom line, we have what,, 9 million folks out of work that would rather be working? something like that. See how bad it is now,, tack on another 3 or 4 million, add in the loss of income tax revenue, consumer spending etc etc..
then tell me that everything will be alright...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Edit: she did, back in June ... so much for the idea of the Tea Party and smaller government/less spending ... who could've seen that coming? 
How does creating a caucus within the legislature equate to big government and more spending?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Let me put this another way. What if our FO had continued to just band-aid the situation rather than go thru the tear-down necessary for a rebuild? It is siimilar.
The safety-nets in place would not prevent anything, however they would buffer it tremendously and the effort and money would go to individuals, not large corporations. The total loss of confidence in banks that happened 1929 would not repeat. Stupidity would not be rewarded. Hard work would not be punished. No it would not be pleasant but IMO what is coming may be a lot worse. There's an old joke about putting a cork in a pig's butt.
Now Phil, Really. Business, large or small, is constrained by the need to make a profit or at least pay for expenses and break even. Government only has to ... convincingly. Most of the subsidies you speak of are simply an agreement NOT to take money. Since corporate dividends and stock appreciation are taxed at the actual owner level, this is just a lessening of double taxation. Given that business is far more efficient, (and if you really don't understand that, you need to find better employers) it is better financially and for the economy as a whole that both business and individuals keep more of the results of their hard work for themselves.
Now let's talk about this helplessness. How many here have called or written their Congressman? Any local officials? Saying that you can't do anything is a good excuse for not doing anything. Things change, often because somebody takes some action.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Everything will be alright. The sun will come out tomorrow, and as long as we are not STUPID and expect the GOVERNMENT to fix the issue or sustain us, the pain, will be short lived. People will not sit on their hands, they will adapt and think of new ways. It is when things are at their worst when the best in man comes out. You can go ahead and think the glass half empty and think woe is me...but I believe in the strength of the American Individual. And history has shown that we can take the big hits and rebound quicker than if we try to ease the pain.
In 1907 the stock market dropped 50%. With no intervention from the government, we were back on our feet within a year or 2. In 1929 the stock market fell almost 50% again. This time the government got involved....and what happened....a 12 year depression. One that we only got out of due to the mobilization toward a World War. Now you tell me.....was it better to try and ease the blow like they did in 1929 or better to take it full on like they did in 1907????
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
People are impatient by nature and have grown to believe that the purpose of government is to solve our problems.... this is largely the fault of politicians who, over the years, have evolved their campaigns in that direction to not just discuss how they are going to lead the country but how they are going to solve the individual problems of hundreds of millions of people.. it's assinine to believe they can.
What the government needs to do, but won't, is drive home the point that the American people, as a group, are irresponsible and immature and every bit as selfish and greedy as the CEO's and the congressman we all love to hate. They need to drive home the point that in this country, as affluent as it is, its sad that the vast majority of people have NO safety net of their own, they have NO savings by which to sustain themselves for even 3-6 months in the event of loss of job or some other unfortunate incident. They have an unmanageable amount of personal debt and they live beyond their means... It's amazing how we act like children with our own money yet we scream and cry about the irresponsibility of congress.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk.
Sorry I'm late to the party, but I LOVE those books.
My older son's favorite is "if you give a Moose a muffin..."
My younger son's favorite is "if you take a Mouse to the movies..."
For those that haven't seen them. Laura Numeroff is the author and Felicia Bond is the illustrator (great pictures).
http://www.amazon.com/You-Give-Mouse-Cookie-Give/dp/0060245867
Quote:
Who would ever suspect that a tiny little mouse could wear out an energetic young boy? Well, if you're going to go around giving an exuberantly bossy rodent a cookie, you'd best be prepared to do one or two more favors for it before your day is through. For example, he'll certainly need a glass of milk to wash down that cookie, won't he? And you can't expect him to drink the milk without a straw, can you? By the time our hero is finished granting all the mouse's very urgent requests--and cleaning up after him--it's no wonder his head is becoming a bit heavy.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Hmmm, I think you are once again trying to reduce the potential negative net effect of not taking the actions that both Bush and Obama took..
Let me repeat myself, I honestly don't know what would have happened. I hear experts on both sides with good arguments as to why we'd have collapsed and why we prosper.
So I don't really know which is true...
I'm just saying, it think comparing it to our football team is rather short sighted.. we are talking a football team here.. maybe, at best, the losing effects, what,, 200 or 300,000 people world wide.. and most of those being fans.. it doesn't take money out of our pockets or removed bread from the table if the Browns continue to lose.
It effects the owner and the team employees and the employees of the staduim etc.. But the general public isn't ruined if the Browns never win another game.. (although, it feels like it sometimes)
How many banks closed during the last two years. How many were taken over by other banks? I don't know the number,, but I think it's not impossible for that number to have doubled.. Tell me how much faith people would have in banks then...
Talk about the Strain on the FDIC then?
Talk about strain on the PBGC with all the pension funds that were depleted by corporations before they shut down..
I'm just saying, making light of it makes little to no sense.. and it's not at all realistic..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
Everything will be alright. The sun will come out tomorrow, and as long as we are not STUPID and expect the GOVERNMENT to fix the issue or sustain us, the pain, will be short lived.
I completely agree with that sentiment..
But somewhere along the line, we pay taxes for our governent to govern.. I think that means to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
To me, domestic means anything within that would destroy us. Not just a guy with a MAC 10 or AK47 shooting up a post office,, but from any entity that threatens our existence or future.
So to me it may mean, we have to do things (that fry my cookies by the way) to help some industries survive and weather the storm..
What would really tick me off is if they didn't learn from it... that would be horrible.. Like Chrysler for instanced. and it's not just corporations, it's workers as well...
RANT OFF
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Hey, now that you have posted again we know you have been back. Can you please answer the question as to who was on a ballot with the person marked as a Tea Party candidate?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
I am curious about that myself.
Mac, where do you vote? I want to look at their ballot online so I can see it for myself.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
Quote:
Everything will be alright. The sun will come out tomorrow, and as long as we are not STUPID and expect the GOVERNMENT to fix the issue or sustain us, the pain, will be short lived.
I completely agree with that sentiment..
But somewhere along the line, we pay taxes for our governent to govern.. I think that means to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
To me, domestic means anything within that would destroy us. Not just a guy with a MAC 10 or AK47 shooting up a post office,, but from any entity that threatens our existence or future.
So to me it may mean, we have to do things (that fry my cookies by the way) to help some industries survive and weather the storm..
What would really tick me off is if they didn't learn from it... that would be horrible.. Like Chrysler for instanced. and it's not just corporations, it's workers as well...
RANT OFF
So you are saying that when I gave my oath when I joined the Navy I was defending GM from anyone who would want to destroy it? maybe we should have attacked Toyota, Honda and Subaru?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
... or the labor union at GM. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
You right wing whack job ...... 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810 |
Quote:
I apologize to mac.
Robert Owens was a state-wide candidate for attorney general endorsed by a tea party coalition (and running on the Constitution line), and not on the Republican line.
I am surprised that mac recognized him on the ballot as such, but I stand by my apology.
Divot...I accept your apology.
The Tea Party is not a recognized political party in Ohio.
That said, the Tea Party "movement" of Ohio did endorse state and local candidates who gladly accepted their Tea Party endorsement, with Owens being one... there were other Tea Party Candidates on my ballot.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810 |
arch...Robert Owens on your ballot?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: she did, back in June ... so much for the idea of the Tea Party and smaller government/less spending ... who could've seen that coming?
How does creating a caucus within the legislature equate to big government and more spending?
I was referring to her tenure as a legislator, not simply her creating a caucus.
The woman's supported the Patriot Act, overseas wars, stimulus spending, R&D funding for corporations, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
I am the federal government.
I thought so,, You're fired
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What candidates were listed under the Tea Party? Where I live in Ohio there nobody on the ballot listed as a Tea Party Party.
There were none that I know of. There were none in Youngstown.
none in Warren
None in Akron either.
brownsbabe...ROBERT OWENS ON YOUR BALLOT?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What candidates were listed under the Tea Party? Where I live in Ohio there nobody on the ballot listed as a Tea Party Party.
There were none that I know of. There were none in Youngstown.
none in Warren
None in Akron either.
brownsbabe...ROBERT OWENS ON YOUR BALLOT?
I find it hilarious that you ran and hid all this time until someone came along and suggested a candidate who was listed under CONSTITUTIONAL party. That means not TEA PARTY. Which you claimed in your original post.
As a Democrat, I can honestly say that you are a joke and make me embarassed that someone like you votes for the same people I do. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
arch...Robert Owens on your ballot?
I don't believe so. If he was, he didn't get my vote, and he also wasn't listed as "Tea Party". Was he listed as that on your ballot???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810 |
Quote:
I find it hilarious that you ran and hid all this time until someone came along and suggested a candidate who was listed under CONSTITUTIONAL party. That means not TEA PARTY. Which you claimed in your original post.
As a Democrat, I can honestly say that you are a joke and make me embarassed that someone like you votes for the same people I do.
joker....divot didn't have a problem understanding once he looked at a ballot...
Quote:
I apologize to mac.
Robert Owens was a state-wide candidate for attorney general endorsed by a tea party coalition (and running on the Constitution line), and not on the Republican line.
I am surprised that mac recognized him on the ballot as such, but I stand by my apology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divot...I accept your apology.
The Tea Party is not a recognized political party in Ohio.
That said, the Tea Party "movement" of Ohio did endorse state and local candidates who gladly accepted their Tea Party endorsement, with Owens being one... there were other Tea Party Candidates on my ballot.
joker...first you need to understand, in the state of Ohio, the "Tea Party" was not recognized by the state "as a political party"...candidates who accepted Tea Party endorsements, which included funding, had to run as one of the recognized parties in the state of Ohio.
I never said that candidates had Tea Party listed beside their names....did I?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
joker...first you need to understand, in the state of Ohio, the "Tea Party" was not recognized by the state "as a political party"...candidates who accepted Tea Party endorsements, which included funding, had to run as one of the recognized parties in the state of Ohio.
I never said that candidates had Tea Party listed beside their names....did I?
Why didn't you say that when the question was first brought up? Instead you ducked and evaded the question for a solid month ... right up until Divot came up with a possible "Well maybe he meant this ... " scenerio, which you have now convienently pounced upon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Quote:
I find it hilarious that you ran and hid all this time until someone came along and suggested a candidate who was listed under CONSTITUTIONAL party. That means not TEA PARTY. Which you claimed in your original post.
As a Democrat, I can honestly say that you are a joke and make me embarassed that someone like you votes for the same people I do.
joker....divot didn't have a problem understanding once he looked at a ballot...
Quote:
I apologize to mac.
Robert Owens was a state-wide candidate for attorney general endorsed by a tea party coalition (and running on the Constitution line), and not on the Republican line.
I am surprised that mac recognized him on the ballot as such, but I stand by my apology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divot...I accept your apology.
The Tea Party is not a recognized political party in Ohio.
That said, the Tea Party "movement" of Ohio did endorse state and local candidates who gladly accepted their Tea Party endorsement, with Owens being one... there were other Tea Party Candidates on my ballot.
joker...first you need to understand, in the state of Ohio, the "Tea Party" was not recognized by the state "as a political party"...candidates who accepted Tea Party endorsements, which included funding, had to run as one of the recognized parties in the state of Ohio.
I never said that candidates had Tea Party listed beside their names....did I?
Oh man, thanks for clarifying that for me. I was sooo confused about how the Ohio political system works. I spent my entire summer internship at the Ohio Statehouse and Ohio Democratic Party taking naps and ignoring everything. Thank you for your infinite wisdom on explaining state politics for me. 
As someone who has admitted that Quote:
I have not been following politics lately as I have been busy enjoying life during this beautiful autumn
you sure seem to know a whole lot about state party structure all of a sudden. You ignored literally hundreds of requests for information about the Tea Party candidates you wrote about. It wasn't until AFTER Divot mentioned Robert Owens that all of a sudden you chimed in with all these facts. Just admit you lied and be a man. Stop hiding behind this and trying to wrangle your way out. Everyone on this board with an ounce of common sense knows you're lying. If you weren't, you wouldn't have waited weeks to answer. You could've just said "I saw Robert Owens was listed on a separate line than a Republican candidate" and could've shut every single doubter up. But no. You hid. You lied. You avoided. And you. are. a. joke.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810 |
Quote:
Quote:
arch...Robert Owens on your ballot?
I don't believe so. If he was, he didn't get my vote, and he also wasn't listed as "Tea Party". Was he listed as that on your ballot???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
arch...and I never stated that anyone had "Tea Party" listed beside their name. Owens was a Tea Party candidate as much as he was allowed to be according to election law in the state of Ohio.
The Tea Party endorsed Owens and he accepted it, listed it on his website.
You and others simply read into what I wrote, what "you" wanted it mean...not what I said.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Well you did say "tea party candidates" in the plural form ... so who else was listed that wasn't Republican?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
While voting, I noticed that "tea party" candidates/ were listed separately from Republicans. I was under the impression that tea partiers "were" Republicans.
All of those words are plural. Can you come up with an example of other candidates that others from this board don't give you?
If Owens was the only Tea Party candidate you saw -- even though you claim to not have been paying attention -- you would have said so. So make your list. I've got time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
You and I are thinking alike tonight. Creepy.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Tea Party? or Republican?
|
|
