Filling the local landfill

[ocnblu]

I just have to announce that I am sick and tired of finding TRASH in my mailbox from the Obama campaign. It's been coming almost DAILY. Think of how much this $h! is stacking up in our landfills... what a waste of resources and energy, and stupid-ass Obama wants to talk out the other side of his mouth and demand that CAFE go to a ricockulous 60 mpg. What kind of effed-up dream world is this guy living in?.

[Satty]

I'm sure your municipality offers recycling.

[ocnblu]

It's on that glossy-ass thick paper that won't recycle. It's a total waste. I wish there was a phone number on this junk so I could call them and gently lodge a maniacal tirade at them. I don't want to hear from those people.

[Satty]

You're actually whining about getting stuff in the mail from a politician in October of an election year? You're not the only one, I get crap constantly from the douchebag Republican candidate for governor. I'm sure that if McCain had any money, he;d send out mailers via the Pony Express.

[ocnblu]

A politician that I have NO love for, yes, I am whining about that. It is a waste and I want no part of it!

[daves87rs]

It could be worse-he could start emailing you....

[ocnblu]

That $h! would be blocked in a heartbeat, but not before I send them a nice, nasty little retort. Oh, I am having so much fun letting loose on these bozos.

[daves87rs]

That $h! would be blocked in a heartbeat, but not before I send them a nice, nasty little retort. Oh, I am having so much fun letting loose on these bozos.

or so you think...

[Sixty8panther]

That $h! would be blocked in a heartbeat, but not before I send them a nice, nasty little retort. Oh, I am having so much fun letting loose on these bozos.

The union (at my UPS job of course) is backing B.H.O. but I AM NOT.

Today a few of us in the "McCain sux but Osbama sux even more"

camp were talking 'bout this "lesser of two evils" election and I said

to one of the skeptics that Obama is so liberal he'd make JFK look

like Hitler by comparison and a couple mASSholes got offeded.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Yeah...

What was it; Obama spent something like 4 million touring the world to talk to people that can't even vote for him, yet people like you and I can't even make our f**kin' house and car payments.

Yeah, he's all for change alright. Instead of feeding the masses , his 'change' is to blow smoke up your ass instead.

A politician is just that; a politician. Just like the popular kids in school, they aren't really good at anything other than sexual favors for people with power and smiling for the camera.

[loki]

my family's mail box is getting mail from BO ..my sister registered just recently...i guess they're trying to get them first thing. LOL

why can't we have a national no mail list like how we got a no call list...or at least in some of these states....

[ocnblu]

Don't forget your deodorant... BO stinks!

[Satty]

What was it; Obama spent something like 4 million touring the world to talk to people that can't even vote for him, yet people like you and I can't even make our f**kin' house and car payments.

So instead of using campaign contributions to meet with world leaders (someone he had been criticized for not doing) he should have donated those contributions to you and your neighbors to pay the bills you've brought on yourself? Then you'd be accusing him of buying votes. Some people need to grow up, some people are just making immature comments instead of trying to use logic and facts to discuss their political position.

[loki]

So instead of using campaign contributions to meet with world leaders (someone he had been criticized for not doing) he should have donated those contributions to you and your neighbors to pay the bills you've brought on yourself? Then you'd be accusing him of buying votes. Some people need to grow up, some people are just making immature comments instead of trying to use logic and facts to discuss their political position.

no no no..Dems love for tax payers to foot bills..so he wouldn't "spend" his money on charitable causes when they want the only "charity" to be the gov, and by "charity" i mean mandated taxes so they either steal from you or raise the prices through taxes/tariffs....

[Satty]

Is that why a Republican president begged Congress to give $700,000,000,000 to Wall Street?

[ocnblu]

NEED YOU BE REMINDED that this Congress has a LOWER approval rating than the Dems' favorite whipping boy, George Bush? Don't forget that it is CONGRESS and the President that are supposed to be working together to make things happen. Edited October 3, 2008 by ocnblu

[Sixty8panther]

NEED YOU BE REMINDED that this Congress has a LOWER approval rating than the Dems' favorite whipping boy, George Bush? Don't forget that it is CONGRESS and the President that are supposed to be working together to make things happen.

LOL. sad but true.

Here's a thought.

Democrats really piss me off when the charity issue comes up.

You know why?

Simple.

We can all agree that there are rich democrats and republicans, right?

(I'm neither, being a low-middle class republican leaning independent/libertarian)

BUT did you know that in charitable contributions Republicans blow the Democrats

out of the water, for you see it's another case of a B.S. stereotype, the Reps. are

evil greedy millionaires, right? And dems. tend to generous.... err not so much, but

the illusion is there.

I hate big government and by extension I can NOT support ubber-liberal agenda.

[Satty]

Congress as a whole almost always has a lower approval rating than the pres, doesn't matter which party is in charge. And things weren't working too well when Congress was rubber stamping everything Bush wanted, hence the 2006 election which created gridlock because Bush isn't the bipartisan politician he claimed to be in 2000. His idea of bipartisanship is getting less conservative Republicans on board with his uber-conservative agenda. That wont be a problem starting next January, huge Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic pres will get things done. These may not be things that everyone agrees with, but you cant please everyone all the time.

And 68, the size of the government has grown under Bush, who I wouldn't call a liberal, unless we're talking about money, he's very liberal when it comes to throwing around taxpayer dollars. He's like a less concerned FDR.

[Sixty8panther]

Bush isn't the bipartisan politician he claimed to be in 2000. His idea of bipartisanship is getting less conservative Republicans on board with his uber-conservative agenda.

I wish Bush was ubber conservative, he's a $hitty excuse for a Republican.

No self respecting Republican would ever back the Patriot Act.

And 68, the size of the government has grown under Bush, who I wouldn't call a liberal, unless we're talking about money, he's very liberal when it comes to throwing around taxpayer dollars. He's like a less concerned FDR.

I never said anything positive about Bush... I was making

an anti-generalization about the Rep. vs. Dem. stereotype.

That wont be a problem starting next January, huge Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic pres will get things done.....

How typical of a B.O. supporter to count their chickens when they're still eggs. :wink:

What exactly do you mean by "get things done?" just wondering which anti-USA

agenda, which specific ultra-liberal, bleeding heart silliness you are referring to?

[Satty]

What exactly do you mean by "get things done?" just wondering which anti-USA

agenda, which specific ultra-liberal, bleeding heart silliness you are referring to?

Tell ya what. Give me some specific examples of this anti-USA agenda, or the specific ultra-liberal, bleeding heart silliness and I'll tell you what I think about them.

[daves87rs]

Interesting....

[Sixty8panther]

Spending time and money taking the talk but NOT walking the walk on the "energy crisis."

Refusing to drill Alaska, or make an effort on domestic oil and or refineries while the

Chinese drill right off our shores.

Flushing our country {further} down the toilet by giving lazy, deadbeat, incompetent

and ignorant people handouts while TAXING the middle classes extra hard.

Selling our country, it's jobs & and it's resources to the lowest/highest bidder...

(gotta red Sofia a book 'casue it's bed time....BBL)

[Satty]

Yeah...none of that was specific examples, they were Karl Rove talking points.

[Camino LS6]

I just have to announce that I am sick and tired of finding TRASH in my mailbox from the Obama campaign. It's been coming almost DAILY. Think of how much this $h! is stacking up in our landfills... what a waste of resources and energy, and stupid-ass Obama wants to talk out the other side of his mouth and demand that CAFE go to a ricockulous 60 mpg. What kind of effed-up dream world is this guy living in? I cannot STAND Barack Hussein Obama.

It's just one of the joys of living in a "battleground" state. I'm getting the same junk mail.

[Satty]

The irony is that PA really isn't a battleground state. Kerry won it in 2004 by 2%, Gore won by 5%, Clinton won by 9% both times. Its been polling steadily for Obama since he won the nomination. You guys shouldn't be getting mail from the Obama campaign simply because its not needed there. Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri are the actual battlegrounds, Bush won them and the polls have been back-and-forth, for the most part.

Edit: For the record, I haven't gotten anything from either presidential candidate. My state rep and the Republican candidate for governor have sent mailers. My Congressional rep has been running tv ads.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Satty

[Camino LS6]

The irony is that PA really isn't a battleground state. Kerry won it in 2004 by 2%, Gore won by 5%, Clinton won by 9% both times. Its been polling steadily for Obama since he won the nomination. You guys shouldn't be getting mail from the Obama campaign simply because its not needed there. Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri are the actual battlegrounds, Bush won them and the polls have been back-and-forth, for the most part.

Well, the candidates must believe it is a battleground. They are here all the time and spending a ton of money on ads, mail, and phone calls.

[Satty]

Yeah, and thats strange. The governor is a Democrat, 11 of the 18 Representatives and 1 of the Senators are Democrats, the state is pretty consistently blue due to the urban areas. Looking at county-level results from 2004, its clear that PA is pretty much Philly and the Burgh, then the rest of the state. Ohio is far more unpredictable because it has more rural population than PA.

[Camino LS6]

Yeah, and thats strange. The governor is a Democrat, 11 of the 18 Representatives and 1 of the Senators are Democrats, the state is pretty consistently blue due to the urban areas. Looking at county-level results from 2004, its clear that PA is pretty much Philly and the Burgh, then the rest of the state. Ohio is far more unpredictable because it has more rural population than PA.

It's an odd mix here, you have the urban areas which are primarily democrat, the rural areas full of republicans with some union democrats, and the burbs which are full of socially liberal republicans. So this state can go any which way in a given election.

I think that the unpredictable nature of PA is why it is often a battleground state.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

So instead of using campaign contributions to meet with world leaders (someone he had been criticized for not doing) he should have donated those contributions to you and your neighbors to pay the bills you've brought on yourself? Then you'd be accusing him of buying votes. Some people need to grow up, some people are just making immature comments instead of trying to use logic and facts to discuss their political position.

You've been passing off your sheltered opinion as fact on this board for years now. Not all of us make "6 figures a year" like you. So yes, I think it's pretty damn 'status quo' and insulting for a POLITICIAN to talk out of one side of his mouth and then do the exact opposite (blow money for no reason)

We're in the midst of the worst financial disaster this country has experienced (save the great depression) and Obama is traveling the globe like he already has the job? there will be plenty of time to improve foreign policy IF and when he becomes president.

This is a RANT thread, not a f*cking 'political discussion'

Edited October 4, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Congress as a whole almost always has a lower approval rating than the pres, doesn't matter which party is in charge. And things weren't working too well when Congress was rubber stamping everything Bush wanted, hence the 2006 election which created gridlock because Bush isn't the bipartisan politician he claimed to be in 2000. His idea of bipartisanship is getting less conservative Republicans on board with his uber-conservative agenda. That wont be a problem starting next January, huge Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic pres will get things done. These may not be things that everyone agrees with, but you cant please everyone all the time.

So basically you'd have the exact same thing you had prior to 2006, except from the dems?!?!? The idea behind government is 'the greater good'

Bush sucks, the republicans suck too. And from where I stand, the democrats suck just as much.

[SingleStylish]

Pure and simple, here is what is wrong with Obama:

From 60 Minutes interview:

Interviewer: "Mr. Obama, you and John McCain both say that you are giving tax breaks. How are your's different?"

Obama: "My tax breaks will roll back the Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain would like to continue like the previous administration. My tax breaks would focus on giving MONEY BACK TO THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO WOULD SPEND IT RATHER THAN SAVE IT. If you earn less that $100,000 a year you will see the most benefit. If you earn more than $250,000 a year you will pay slightly more taxes."

Interviewer: "What about if you earn less than $250,000 and $100,000 a year?"

Obama: "Well, Mike [interviewer] uh... [pause] your taxes will go up some."

Mr. Obama's tax "cuts" are similar to a Robin Hood plan or some would even call it socialist. I find it ironic however, that he really aims to increase taxes upon the people who vote Republican. Most successful small business owners, a mostly Republican bunch, fall in the 100k-250k range. The "Whine and Cheese" Dems who have supported Obama for the most part will not see much change in his tax policies. Furthermore, most of Obama's policies address the symptom not the problem. If most of America can't afford healthcare but can afford 17 million cars sold at an average of 24k=$408 billion something is wrong. Just that one consumer item would amount to $113/month per individual drawing breath in this great country. You think that could buy some damn insurance for those who STATE they can't afford it?

Obama like many of those who support him (voting on issues alone, not race) don't know when to stop the entitlement arguement. Not everyone needs a home. Many can't afford it, now we are all paying for it. Not everyone needs the latest cell phone, car, furniture, clothing good, video game, computer, etc. Much of America simply wants more stuff without earning it (i.e. credit crisis) so they turn to government rather than changing their priorities.

We DESPERATELY need a President that will bring individual accountability to the table. I don't see either candidate doing that.

[Sixty8panther]

Obama like many of those who support him (voting on issues alone, not race) don't know when to stop the entitlement arguement. Not everyone needs a home. Many can't afford it, now we are all paying for it. Not everyone needs the latest cell phone, car, furniture, clothing good, video game, computer, etc. Much of America simply wants more stuff without earning it (i.e. credit crisis) so they turn to government rather than changing their priorities.

We DESPERATELY need a President that will bring individual accountability to the table. I don't see either candidate doing that.

Well said.

[Croc]

Pure and simple, here is what is wrong with Obama:

From 60 Minutes interview:

Interviewer: "Mr. Obama, you and John McCain both say that you are giving tax breaks. How are your's different?"

Obama: "My tax breaks will roll back the Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain would like to continue like the previous administration. My tax breaks would focus on giving MONEY BACK TO THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO WOULD SPEND IT RATHER THAN SAVE IT. If you earn less that $100,000 a year you will see the most benefit. If you earn more than $250,000 a year you will pay slightly more taxes."

Interviewer: "What about if you earn less than $250,000 and $100,000 a year?"

Obama: "Well, Mike [interviewer] uh... [pause] your taxes will go up some."

Mr. Obama's tax "cuts" are similar to a Robin Hood plan or some would even call it socialist. I find it ironic however, that he really aims to increase taxes upon the people who vote Republican. Most successful small business owners, a mostly Republican bunch, fall in the 100k-250k range. The "Whine and Cheese" Dems who have supported Obama for the most part will not see much change in his tax policies. Furthermore, most of Obama's policies address the symptom not the problem. If most of America can't afford healthcare but can afford 17 million cars sold at an average of 24k=$408 billion something is wrong. Just that one consumer item would amount to $113/month per individual drawing breath in this great country. You think that could buy some damn insurance for those who STATE they can't afford it?

Obama like many of those who support him (voting on issues alone, not race) don't know when to stop the entitlement arguement. Not everyone needs a home. Many can't afford it, now we are all paying for it. Not everyone needs the latest cell phone, car, furniture, clothing good, video game, computer, etc. Much of America simply wants more stuff without earning it (i.e. credit crisis) so they turn to government rather than changing their priorities.

We DESPERATELY need a President that will bring individual accountability to the table. I don't see either candidate doing that.

Sorry, that's not accurate. Here's what a lot of economists have been publishing:

[SingleStylish]

Sorry, that's not accurate. Here's what a lot of economists have been publishing:

Croc,

I don't know where you got your graphic. Truly it doesn't matter, the man himself stated it on national television. Fact.

[SingleStylish]

Sorry, that's not accurate. Here's what a lot of economists have been publishing:

Upon further scruitiny I find your graphic to reinforce my opinion those it doesn't reinforce Obama's statements. His taxes increase for the wealthiest Americans while decreasing taxes the most for those Amercians that use the most government services. How is this equitable? If we HAVE to have nationalized healthcare or a million other socialistic programs (i.e. Social Security) why not follow the Brits and have a flat 17% income tax?

[Croc]

How is this equitable?

Because like Warren Buffet has joked about, he pays a 15% tax rate, while many of his employees pay a 35% tax rate. The graphic shows the increase over the current tax structure, so it's basically righting a wrong where the lower and middle, and upper-middle classes were paying a significantly higher rate than the richest of the rich...and THAT's not equitable.

[ocnblu]

The entire tax code needs to be reformed and simplified. Whoa, I sound like John McCain!

[Croc]

The entire tax code needs to be reformed and simplified. Whoa, I sound like John McCain!

No, that's Ron Paul. Stop getting your politicians mixed up or you'll gain a Palin-esque reputation as C&G's resident bimbo

[ocnblu]

Who the heck is Run Pull?

[loki]

No, that's Ron Paul.

he want's it "banished" to the neither worlds ...neither here nor there.

[Sixty8panther]

I like the idea of a 100% flat tax.... also, the "fair tax" seems like a good way to go.

[Bimmer325]

Can we go back to the "no political talk" rule?

[Croc]

Can we go back to the "no political talk" rule?

If you can't stand the heat and chaos, get out of the kitchen.

That said, there wasn't a (Political) on this thread title.

[ocnblu]

When are we going back to the "NO POLITICAL TALK" rule? The hard feelings are putting a strain on the forum. Hopefully we can heal when this is all over, but who can predict? I still say it was misguided to start this whole thing. How can we get back to the way things were before? Edited October 6, 2008 by ocnblu

[Croc]

The hard feelings are putting a strain on the forum.

What hard feelings? The vast majority of those contributing to the CLEARLY MARKED threads are able to do so without getting heated. If YOU are having hard feelings toward the Obama supporters, that's your problem. I honestly don't care how you're going to vote, and certainly haven't lost any respect for you because of the choice you've made known on this site. What WILL start losing respect very rapidly, though, are silly comments about Biden's hair plugs. There are plenty of substantive reasons to vote for either side in this election, or to vote for a third party candidate. There are reasoned economic decisions, reasoned and emotional decisions based on social ideologies, and purely emotional decisions based on other factors. All of those carry some degree of legitimacy, if they are expressed. But just kvetching and whining about any political talk whatsoever on the site is pretty immature IMO.

Hopefully we can heal when this is all over, but who can predict? I still say it was misguided to start this whole thing. How can we get back to the way things were before?

Ummm...I really don't see anyone partaking in the political threads taking any of it to heart as some kind of personal attack. There really isn't much "ganging up" going on, mostly postings of news and commentary with cited sources so the info can be discussed rationally. That leads me to conclude that YOU are having hurt feelings over it. C&G is a community that thrives on mutual respect...and I'm pretty sure that most of the people on here like you as the person you present yourself to be on here on a daily basis. I'm extremely confident in saying that no one is holding your political preference against you personally on here.

Political threads are supposed to be labeled in the subject line as such...if you don't like those threads, then stay out and/or don't post them. But I really don't see how it is equitable to ban an entire topic of discussion because a small group of posters can't help but get sore over it. By that logic, if we have a vocal minority who just can't stand Pontiac and think the site would be less contentious without the Pontiac forum, we should cater to them and ban Pontiac discussion since it might disrupt forum harmony. That's ridiculous. Oh, but this is a GM fansite, so the analogy doesn't work! Right? Meh...political talk is in The Lounge, and like it or not, when Big 3 Bailouts, CAFE legislation, union issues, imports/exports, the trading value of the dollar, outsourcing, and global synergies all play such an integral role in the automotive industry...politics and political talk BASED ON ISSUES is pretty much a necessity.

[Bimmer325]

I"m all for civilized political discussion.

What I'm not for is starting a thread to whine about "stupid-ass" "Barack Hussein Obama."

It's useless, it's unnecessary, and it's not conducive to the atmosphere we should be trying to preserve around here.

I thought the "no political talk" rule was waived under the idea that only mature, educated discussion would be tolerated. Threads like this make it pretty clear that's not the case.

[toesuf94]

All of US are to blame for our current situation. WE THE PEOPLE hire these idiots to important positions and then do NOT hold them accountable for their actions. WE are the ones who are screwing the pooch by voting these bozos back in to office for another term, keeping them in position only adds to their power and the corruption. NOBODY should want to be a public servant for more than one term!

If you want to effect change, vote out ALL INCUMBENT politicians. Get rid of them! Are you tired of seing Pelosi or Barney Frank on T.V.? Then don't VOTE THEM BACK IN. It is that simple. Get them all out of there. And make it a point that whoever we vote into office in their place takes the initiative to END the greed and corruption in our Government, and the first thing they should do is put an end to the golden parachutes that all these idiots enjoy! Stop the worlds greatest healthcare and the pensions that have a cost of living increase in perpetuity until they die (and transfer to spouses!!!)

Government officials are parasites that live off of our backs and hard work. Nary a one has EVER contributed to society and will never amount to anything more than a leech on the taxpayer's wallet. Get RID OF THEM. Enforce a term limit, and hold whoever you vote in to WHAT YOU WANT DONE. Impeach judges that legislate from the bench (their job is to interpret and enforce the law in situations pertaining to a crime/worng done...NOT re-write laws against the will of the people!)

America, we need to wake up and see who is at the controls of this country - NOW! I was a Bush Supporter in the first election, and am a registered independent, and I cannot wait until he and the rest of the idiots in Washington are GONE! Obama has NOT had any tough (or any for that matter) questions asked of him nor has his backround with the people he hangs with been delved into. Not exactly the job interview I want given for the top job in the country. McCain is perhaps the lessor of two evils, but not my first choice at all for the job. Why do we look at 50 women for MS. America, but only two for president? The only way we will abolish the two party system in the country is to put an end to the long termers and start with new blood every 4-8 years!

As for the mail from Obama that is not recycleable...if you hate the guy so much, shred it slowly or burn it. It should entertain you.

[ocnblu]

I do have a problem with people questioning me over who I plan to vote for. And it HAS gotten personal, and I do NOT like it one God damned bit.

"I thought you were gay, how can you vote for McCain?"

"You really are repressed..."

Need I go on? I do not have to answer to any one of you my reasons for voting for a certain person, and believe me, I am paying attention to this race. My mind is made up, it has been since before all this bull$h! started, and that's that.

I do NOT like Barack Hussein Obama (do you have a problem with his name, Bimmer?) because he is naive, he has no experience, and he is blowing smoke up our asses with all these promises that he will NOT be able to keep. I feel he is a dangerous choice when we need a man in there who is tough on national security issues. A president cannot do a damn thing about the economy... and this Congress has shown ineptitude day after day. I fail to see how electing Obama will help us... looking across all the toughest issues we face as a nation, John McCain is the much stronger candidate.

I see Oldsmoboi closed a thread here in the Lounge because someone made a disparaging remark in a joking manner about him supporting Obama. He couldn't take the heat... but instead of graciously getting out of the kitchen, he abused his power and locked the thread. THAT... is regrettable.

Edited October 6, 2008 by ocnblu

[Sixty8panther]

I'm on the fence 'bout the political talk. But I have to be honest,

it IS interesting where people's political opinion/feelings are.

Some I could have predicted very easily, others shocked me.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[Camino LS6]

Actually, any political thread that isn't labeled as such is subject to being locked.

And Bimmer is absolutely correct about how we expected the membership to discuss political topics.

Shape up!

This thread is now closed.