Jump to content
This one's gonna be wild. All signs point to sun, so come one come all!
Mark, this guy seems right up your alley:
Wow, Tom, that's quite a beam into Dan S's soul. Somehow, you know everything he believes. How'd you do that?
Of course, for that to happen, there will have to be a party that's untethered from the upper 1%. Not likely to happen unless we get a bunch more people like Sanders. I'm not against wealth; I'm against its undue influence upon the running of this country, which has led directly to the debilitating inequality problem we're currently facing. To solve this, government needs to act as a check on corporate power, not an enabler as it is with the TPP and its ilk.
Mark, I agree with you on one thing: Obama either has no spine or has been putting in a masterfully sociopathic performance this whole time. His actions have been far different than his words would indicate.
It's the old divide and conquer trick. Never fails. The lower 90% fight over the scraps; meanwhile, people like the Kochs are laughing all the way to the bank. Sooner or later, working class whites who are currently being convinced to vote against their interests by Fox News and the like will realize they're being had. It might take a disastrous term by someone like Scott Walker to bring about this realization, but when it comes, and after the dust settles, we'll finally be able to start working together to fix this place, assuming that's still possible.
I'm with James. Gotta love how right-wingers can go on and on about how horrible government is, and then in the next breath say that government should be in the business of regulating who can get married or that it should force a woman to carry her child to term even if it was the result of a rape. Because, ya know, there's legitimate rape and all.
See what I did there, Mark? Maybe you don't believe there's such a thing as legitimate rape, but clearly there are some religious conservatives who do. Should you be painted with that broad brush? "They do not want the institution of marriage to remain "sacred"; they despise it. They only want it to be diluted, broadened and thus corrupted into a meaningless union which will eventually include people+animals, one man+3 wives (or 8), one woman+ a cat, and so on."
If you really believe that, then you're a lost cause. There's no way to have a respectful conversation when one side believes the other is out to destroy society.
Personally, I think they merely want acknowledgement that their love for one another is every bit as valid as yours for your wife. Giving them the same rights but not allowing them to call their union a marriage cheapens it. They know it, and you know it.
Obama didn't win a Pulitzer, did he? I mean, the peace prize is bad enough, but if he won a Pulitzer as well I might just drop dead from the irony.
Tom, you're hilarious. Guilty until proven innocent, huh?
You guys must really love Dan S; you come out and play every time he posts. Why is that?
And Dan S, bravo for stirring up the hornets' nest yet again. You must be doing something right.
How do you know Overstreet was doing that intentionally to circumvent these laws?
And how exactly does this work as far as negotiating the contract with Triple Crown? Did council already authorize the contract to be renewed? Do they give Overstreet some sort of goals to shoot for and some definite no-nos in negotiations?
Just curious how this all works.
The Triple Crown meetings with Overstreet seem like an oversight to me. NBD. He just told the PRC the other night that he hadn't heard back from Triple Crown. Maybe that changed and he wanted to update them asap.
The walks through downtown, however, are another matter entirely. They should definitely be publicized in advance.
Can anyone enlighten me on this URA? I thought it would need to be approved by the voters. Is that not the case? Is this upcoming hearing really all they need to do in order to adopt it?
Last login: Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.