August 31, 2015

are you tired of seeing posts like this in other parties whaco group

while liberals nurse the fantasy that conservatives are "full of hate", instead, when these incidents occur, we see that most times a liberal is doing the killing.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that IBM's actions stirring up racial hatred figured, at least in part, into the killer's decision for action here.

Had this killer been a Christian, or a TEA party member or a hated Trump supporter, the story would be run wall-to-wall for days.

However, I think as this unfolds we will see that the shooter does not fall into that narrative, and so this story will disappear from the MSM in a day or two.

the above is a typical post from this lame brain fool! I have had a gun since I was 8,hunted since I was 10(the first two years I was not allowed to use a gun in nov.) but went with my dad to his stump! I tagged my first deer when I was 12. I SHOT MY FIRST PARTRIDGE WHEN I WAS 10. This was my first lesson about killing game the bird was sitting in a fir tree after we flushed it -my dad said you can shoot it. when we cleaned it he said see all those shot in the breast- you should only shoot a bird in the air. And try to aim at the wing . well I never was the wing shot my dad was -but more than once I've proved I can clip a wing on a partridge or a duck so there is fewer pellets in the breast. I've dropped more than one deer on the dead run. I've never shot anyone but I must admit there have been a few I should have. how anyone can make the statement that the right is for the colored when it's only been a few years that any have been elected to national office in their party shows me the person has the brains of a bucket of mush.
ps this is mild compared to what I would really like to say in person to this hate monger- and is one independent that will stand his ground!

August 10, 2015

how to make a republican happy.

Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 03/08/2013 - 1:45pm
I am so sick of Paul LePage's
I am so sick of Paul LePage's stupid antics.

Top
Log in to post comments
Thu, 08/06/2015 - 8:11pm (Reply to #4) #4
Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 12 min 17 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
And then there is stupid
And then there is stupid posts !

Top
Log in to post comments
Thu, 08/06/2015 - 8:17pm (Reply to #5) #5
DemNemesis
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 03/08/2013 - 1:45pm
"And then there is stupid
"And then there is stupid posts !" Which yours could be considered an example of...

Top
Log in to post comments
Fri, 08/07/2015 - 5:56am #6
David Allen
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 2:38pm
Now is the time for the
Now is the time for the Republican Party to publicly distance itself from LePage. He has already alienated the legislature, and more and more of the electorate is likely beginning to recognize him as the buffoon that he is. Unfortunately, doing that would be tricky. Some of his ideas appeal to the majority of voters, especially in the areas of welfare reform and taxation, but the man himself is a liability. The tricky part is repudiating his actions without denigrating all of the programs he espoused. He's rendered himself completely ineffective as the leader of the Party. He's lost the power of the bully pulpit. The legislature will have to muddle through the rest of the 127th and all of the 128th sessions. If Eves wins his civil suit, it will get even worse.

Top
Log in to post comments
Fri, 08/07/2015 - 6:41am (Reply to #7) #7
DemNemesis
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 03/08/2013 - 1:45pm
Sadly, the Maine Republican
Sadly, the Maine Republican Committee is behind the Governor right or wrong. The committee is more comfortable distancing themselves from the Maine people. Besides, the damage to the party has already been done. Further damage might be preventable but I fear 2016 is going to be a blood bath for Rs in the Maine Legislature. People want to neuter LePage and the best way to do that is to ensure that Dems have a strong majority. Dems are loving all of this and I can't blame them.

August 7, 2015

he said=its not about winning or losing= wtf

A MESSAGE FOR THE MAINE HERITAGE GROUP ;THE TEA PARTY AND MR BURNETT -IT'S NOT ABOUT WINNING OR LOSING, IT'S ABOUT YOU IDIOTS WASTING MY TAX MONEY ON THE FOOLISHNESS YOU GUYS COME UP WITH=LIKE TABOR(WHICH WAS FALSELY PROMOTED A FEW YEARS BACK ) GET OFF YOUR GOD DAM ASS AND DO THE PEOPLES BUSINESS(THAT'S HOW A DEMOCRACY IS RUN) THE COURT HAS SPOKEN NOW ACT OR WE THE PEOPLE WILL!
"In their unanimous ruling Thursday, the justices acknowledged that "the constitutional language at issue is ambiguous. The Questions presented by the governor require reference to context, governmental tradition and practice and judicial precedent." The ruling said based on the filing, factual background and legislative record, along with the long-held traditions and practices of Maine governors and Legislatures, the "temporary legislative adjournment does not prevent the return of the bills."
WCSH6
Schedule set for Gov. LePage vs Legislature
The State of Maine Constitution mandates the governor has 10 days to act on bills if lawmakers are in session. However, if the Legislature has adjourned, the governor is not required to take action until the Legislature reconvenes for three full and consecutive days.
The justices said the 65 bills that were not returned within the time limit became law, effective 90 days after the adjournment of the first regular session. They said they were aware of the hope that a compromise would be found that would allow an opportunity to revisit the decisions and timeframes, but the Maine Constitution doesn't allow for it.
NOW WHAT ONE OF YOU MORONS CAN'T READ THIS!OR NEED A PROCTOR TO EXPLAIN IT TO YA?

August 5, 2015

what I got out of the gop so called "N,H, DEBATE"

It seemed to me that the better speakers were in the lower % group. I see all this pack money
is going to the party choice (JEB) and he seemed ill prepared in his responses. hmm you say ;well if your hit with a question your not ready for you fumble and stumble-you have a speech impediment or as a Mainer would say "your a little slow on the up take." my opinion after seeing him several times on different tv bytes is he isn't to fast on the up take and I think that may be generic. that doesn't mean he's dumb,but his slow fumble bumble replies could make voters think this.
IF they give Trump free reign he will chew the other nine to bits. I'll bet you will see the tables turned in the blink of an eye.

August 5, 2015

hard to believe medicare is 50

Medicare turns 50 this week, and it has been a very good half-century. Before the program went into effect, Ronald Reagan warned that it would destroy American freedom; it didn’t, as far as anyone can tell. What it did do was provide a huge improvement in financial security for seniors and their families, and in many cases it has literally been a lifesaver as well.

But the right has never abandoned its dream of killing the program. So it’s really no surprise that Jeb Bush recently declared that while he wants to let those already on Medicare keep their benefits, “We need to figure out a way to phase out this program for others.”

What is somewhat surprising, however, is the argument he chose to use, which might have sounded plausible five years ago, but now looks completely out of touch. In this, as in other spheres, Bush often seems like a Rip Van Winkle who slept through everything that has happened since he left the governor’s office — after all, he’s still boasting about Florida’s housingbubble boom.

Actually, before I get to Bush’s argument, I guess I need to acknowledge that a Bush spokesman claims that the candidate wasn’t actually calling for an end to Medicare, he was just talking about things like raising the age of eligibility. There are two things to say about this claim. First, it’s clearly false: In context, Bush was obviously talking about converting Medicare into a voucher system, along the lines proposed by Paul Ryan.

And second, while raising the Medicare age has long been a favorite idea of Washington’s Very Serious People, a couple of years ago the Congressional Budget Office did a careful study and discovered that it would hardly save any money. That is, at this point raising the Medicare age is a zombie idea, which should have been killed by analysis and evidence, but is still out there eating some people’s brains.

But then, Bush’s real argument, as opposed to his campaign’s lame attempt at a rewrite, is just a bigger zombie.

The real reason conservatives want to do away with Medicare has always been political: It’s the very idea of the government providing a universal safety net that they hate, and they hate it even more when such programs are successful. But when they make their case to the public they usually shy away from making their real case, and have even, incredibly, sometimes posed as the program’s defenders against liberals and their death panels.

What Medicare’s wouldbe killers usually argue, instead, is that the program as we know it is unaffordable - that we must destroy the system in order to save it, that, as Bush put it, we must “move to a new system that allows (seniors) to have something — because they’re not going to have anything.” And the new system they usually advocate is, as I said, vouchers that can be applied to the purchase of private insurance.

The underlying premise here is that Medicare as we know it is incapable of controlling costs, that only the only way to keep health care affordable going forward is to rely on the magic of privatization.

Now, this was always a dubious claim. It’s true that for most of Medicare’s history its spending has grown faster than the economy as a whole — but this is true of health spending in general. In fact, Medicare costs per beneficiary have consistently grown more slowly than private insurance premiums, suggesting that Medicare is, if anything, better than private insurers at cost control. Furthermore, other wealthy countries with government-provided health insurance spend much less than we do, again suggesting that Medicare-type programs can indeed control costs.

Still, conservatives scoffed at the cost-control measures included in the Affordable Care Act, insisting that nothing short of privatization would work.

And then a funny thing happened: The act’s passage was immediately followed by an unprecedented pause in Medicare cost growth. Indeed, Medicare spending keeps coming in ever further below expectations, to an extent that has revolutionized our views about the sustainability of the program and of government spending as a whole.

Right now is, in other words, a very odd time to be going on about the impossibility of preserving Medicare, a program whose finances will be strained by an aging population but no longer look disastrous. One can only guess that Bush is unaware of all this, that he’s living inside the conservative information bubble, whose impervious shield blocks all positive news about health reform.

Meanwhile, what the rest of us need to know is that Medicare at 50 still looks very good. It needs to keep working on costs, it will need some additional resources, but it looks eminently sustainable. The only real threat it faces is that of attack by right-wing zombies.

———