A Burgundy and Gold Obsession
'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.' - Groucho Marx

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Disagree Disagree:  0
Post of the Year Post of the Year:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1. #1

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Bill

    Well, at least they are consistent.
    ***********************************************

    Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic bill calling for equal pay in the workplace. But President Obama and his congressional allies aren't finished appealing to women on the No. 1 concern for all voters: the cash in their wallets on the heels of recession.

    As expected, the pay equity bill failed along party lines, 52-47, short of the required 60-vote threshold. But for majority Democrats, passage wasn't the only point. The debate itself was designed to put Republicans on the defensive on yet another women's issue, this one overtly economic after a government report showing slower-than-expected job growth.

    "It is incredibly disappointing that in this make-or-break moment for the middle class, Senate Republicans put partisan politics ahead of American women and their families," Obama said in a statement after the vote.

    "Even Mitt Romney has refused to publicly oppose this legislation," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "He should show some leadership."

    Unlike past taunts over access to contraception and abortion, Republicans this time didn't take the bait.

    In Fort Worth, Texas, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee focused instead on unemployment among Latinos.

    "Of course Gov. Romney supports pay equity for women," said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. "In order to have pay equity, women need to have jobs, and they have been getting crushed in this anemic Obama economy."

    The Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would require employers to prove that differences in pay are based on qualifications, education and other "bona fides" not related to gender. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who ask about, discuss or disclose wages in response to a complaint or investigation. And it would make employers who violate sex-discrimination laws liable for compensatory or punitive damages.



    Click link for rest.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  2. #2
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    They blocked it for multiple reasons.

    1. The Equal Pay Act Of 1963 already covers a lot of the issues that this bill is reported to address.

    2. The GOP doesn't see the need to reward plaintiff lawyers for constantly filing unfounded lawsuits to pad their pockets.

    3. Every woman in the country will sue their employer if they get paid less than their male counterparts, even if they know they are a lesser quality employee (undeniable, since there is a statute in the bill specifically allowing for this, and leaving it up to the employer to fund litigation to prove that the sub par work is the real reason the worker is paid less)

    The left is attempting to demonize the GOP in the eyes of women with this. (I will not change the text of this, because it is not an opinion. The left went through with it, knowing it would be struck down just as it has several times before, then they get on tv and talk about how much the GOP is trying to hold back women. So yes, this is a factual statement unless proven otherwise.)

    Can anyone on the left explain to me a real difference between this and the Equal Pay Act Of 1963 that justifies signing a new law and clogging dockets as a result of this if it were passed.

    There's also this....

    A 2007 Consad Research Corporation study prepared for the Department of Labor cautioned against misinterpretation of census and other wage data, suggesting that the wage gap between the sexes was not due to systematic discrimination:

    Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

    Similarly, Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the proposed law, citing the study by the United States Department of Labor that showed that differences in pay between men and women are largely due to "the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers" in which women take jobs that are more family-friendly in terms of benefits rather than wages and that women are more likely to take breaks in employment to care for children or parents.

    Columnist Daniel Fisher criticized the legislation in Forbes magazine, saying that the elimination of the "reason other than sex" defense that could be used by employers under existing law would mean that wage differences based on an individual's salary history and negotiating skills would be treated as being evidence of discrimination, despite the fact that the employer's actions were not based on gender
    The biggest thing this bill would do, is reward women who didn't bust their ass to make it, out of the fear by the employer they will be sued. And they would be. Women everywhere would be getting absurd wage increases based solely on fear in most cases, because women who were refused a raise would threaten to sue based on this bill, just like a lot of minorities do with affirmative action. Affirmative action has failed us as a people, and this has the potential to be no different.

    Here's another good example.....

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2...-anything-but/
    Under existing law, companies can respond to a new hire’s prior pay history or compensation demands. For example, Fair Pay Shipping Co. decides it wants to hire shipping managers and pay them $30,000. It offers employment to John and Sally. Sally accepts the $30,000, but John demands $33,000, which the company agrees to pay. Under the existing statute, probably no problem, because the law currently says that an employer is not liable if it paid John and Sally differently for “a reason other than sex.” The same would be true if Fair Pay Shipping Co. decided to pay each new hire $1,000 more than they made in their previous employment, and John made more than Sally in their previous jobs.

    The result would be very different under the Paycheck Fairness Act, which eliminates the “reason other than sex” defense and substitutes instead a requirement that the employer prove that its pay practices are divorced from any discrimination in its workplace or at the employee’s prior workplace, that the pay practice is job related, and that it is consistent with “business necessity.”

    So, now employers must have one pay for a job, not only at the entry level, but throughout the organization. For example, what if a year after Fair Pay Shipping Co. hires John and Sally, John comes in and asks for a raise, but Sally does not. Under the existing law, Fair Pay Shipping is probably OK giving John a raise and not Sally. Not so if the Paycheck Fairness Act passes.
    .........AND, it is absolutely, of course, a way to SPEND MORE MONEY. You didn't think I'd leave that out, did you?

    Here is the bill, with a particularly interesting part highlighted.....
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s182/text
    SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.

    (a) Program Authorized-

    (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Labor, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish and carry out a grant program.

    (2) GRANTS- In carrying out the program, the Secretary of Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs for girls and women.

    (3) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization.

    (4) APPLICATION- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.

    (5) USE OF FUNDS- An entity that receives a grant under this subsection shall use the funds made available through the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male employees.
    Yes, you read that right. They will use tax funded grants to send women to negotiating skills training courses. But......doesn't THAT discriminate against MEN who can't negotiate?

    I especially like the part of the bill that goes into detail about the extra workload that will fall on the Department of Labor, EEOC, etc........creating even more spending.

    Yeah, good thing the GOP is consistent.
    Last edited by Nobody; 06-08-12 at 10:02 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  3. #3
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    No response? You feeling ok?
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default

    No, I just choose not to get into the normal back and forth with you. Its never productive, and probably the only person who enjoys it is you.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  5. #5
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanky Livingston View Post
    No, I just choose not to get into the normal back and forth with you. Its never productive, and probably the only person who enjoys it is you.
    So you start a thread you don't care to discuss? I don't understand, why start the thread? Did I ruin it with facts too early?

    Next time I'll let it wiggle around a few days before I step on it
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    02-01-10
    Location
    Waynesboro, VA
    Posts
    9,169
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    65
    James Madison

    Default

    Perhaps Lanky's reticence has something to do with the following debate "tactics":

    Democrats are pretending
    Democrats are trying to implement an election year tactic
    Democrats support it is to gain favor
    another sham heavily backed by Democrats
    Democrats. Consistently trying to polish turds
    Tell ya what. Next time you would like to honestly debate an issue without name calling and general partisan hackery, let me know.

    First time for everything, right?
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    OLine. DLine. Secondary.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goaldeje View Post
    Perhaps Lanky's reticence has something to do with the following debate "tactics":

    Tell ya what. Next time you would like to honestly debate an issue without name calling and general partisan hackery, let me know.

    First time for everything, right?
    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  8. #8
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goaldeje View Post
    Perhaps Lanky's reticence has something to do with the following debate "tactics":
    Tell ya what. Next time you would like to honestly debate an issue without name calling and general partisan hackery, let me know.

    First time for everything, right?
    Oh, I'm sorry Goal, I wasn't aware that you could trash Republicans, but nobody can trash Democrats. I'll make a mental note.

    Oh, and there was no name calling

    And seriously, you use the argument that you disagree with my opinion, and completely ignore the facts posted? Debate the facts and merits then, not my opinion of the left. It was posted as a jab at the right from the opening line of the thread. I was always told you don't dish it out if you can't take it. It's no secret Lanky doesn't like the right, and it's no secret I don't like the left. It doesn't change the facts of the topic at hand though.

    It's like saying you disagree with a factual news story, based solely on the anchor's commentary at the end. The facts are the facts are the facts are the facts. Which I posted along with my opinion.

    Do you not agree that my last comment was in retort to his first? Do you not agree affirmative action is a sham?
    Last edited by Nobody; 06-07-12 at 03:46 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    02-01-10
    Location
    Waynesboro, VA
    Posts
    9,169
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    65
    James Madison

    Default

    But why bother? Inevitably, the "facts" get intertwined with opinion, and there we go again...

    At some point, you just have to stop.

    And I haven't agreed or disagreed with anything in this thread. Not one thing. You have no idea what my position is on what Lanky posted, which is another reason I am not engaging. You assume you know, and that is enough for the partisan BS to start.

    Sorry dude, it gets tiresome.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    OLine. DLine. Secondary.

  10. #10
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSr619 View Post
    This is getting ridiculous. Extreme, you are really on one today and I'm not sure why but it's hard to figure out. This site isn't really for the bickering back and forth even if you don't believe you're doing it.
    I do know I'm doing it, I do hear ya Mike. As far as this topic goes though, I was responding to basically being told all the facts don't matter, because I included my opinion at the end, and that's just ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSr619 View Post
    3 random people cant all be wrong.
    Obama, Biden, Reid

    Seriously though, I don't see why everything is getting so ape**** today, I'm seriously trying to put out fires, not start them, and it seems to be having an opposite effect today. I don't know if what I'm saying is just coming out wrong, or if everyone is having a bad day or what.

    To everyone I have rubbed wrong today, I apologize. I'll be going now.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    this effort to control content and tone is truly scary....and a theme trapped in an infinite do loop. it might not have occurred to some that they are not the arbiters of what is principled exchange...especially since we ALL know about the missives that go on behind the scenes that make a TOTAL mockery of the false front (read assumed goodness).

    btw Goal...what if Ex is correct about dem leadership strategy? I haven't seen anyone refute the generalizations....only ad hominems directed a Ex....and solicitations for conformance to unstated rules of propriety when it comes to BGO PA "dialogue".
    Last edited by fansince62; 06-08-12 at 08:42 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  12. #12
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fansince62 View Post
    this effort to control content and tone is truly scary....and a theme trapped in an infinite do loop. it might not have occurred to some that they are not the arbiters of what is principled exchange...especially since we ALL know about the missives that go on behind the scenes that make a TOTAL mockery of the false front (read assumed goodness).

    btw Goal...what if Ex is correct about dem leadership strategy? I haven't seen anyone refute the generalizations....only ad hominems directed a Ex....and solicitations for conformance to unstated rules of propriety when it comes to BGO PA "dialogue".
    You haven't noticed what the real problem is? The way it is here, reflects exactly how it is in real life. If anyone mentions anything that can be taken as negative toward the left, they're a scumbag according to the Liberals. Most Liberals can't debate a topic that makes them look bad for the same reason Obama can't - because when you're caught with you're pants down, it's hard to say you were simply getting dressed.

    So if you don't agree with Liberal politics, everything you say is just an attempt to piss everyone off and it carries no weight. No matter how true it is, as evidenced by the response to what I posted in this thread. There was not a single thing I mentioned at the heart of the debate that was not absolute fact. It wasn't an opinion piece, hence the quoted sources.

    But you do have to chuckle at the people who railed against Bush for 8 years non stop, threatening to leave the country and going over the top drama at everything, now saying everyone who doesn't agree with Obama is a biased prick who should shut up and take it. Hello shoe, meet other foot.

    I wanna try something. I'm going back to my first post in this thread, and I will eliminate all of the personal hatred for Democrats that I have, and see if anyone cares to refute it then. They can't, and they won't try, but at least they can't use the veiled excuse that they simply choose not to respond because I'm being biased. It's a deflection tactic, nothing more.

    Trust me, if I can say something good about Obama (as I did with his stance on all things education) then I promise it's possible for you guys to admit the Democrats aren't always right.

    Apparently it's easier to attack a poster for disagreeing with you, rather than admit that there's a chance you may have been wrong with your initial assumption.

    Edit: My original post has been edited. Now try to refute the content of my post, rather than leveling attacks on me because you don't like me.
    Last edited by Nobody; 06-08-12 at 10:05 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    02-01-10
    Location
    Waynesboro, VA
    Posts
    9,169
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    65
    James Madison

    Default

    Al, first off, I think Boone et all have been VERY clear about the level of discourse they expect. It's their site, they own it, I think its fair we all try to abide by their rules. If we can't or won't do that, we need to find another place to play.

    Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I really do think it is that simple.

    Ex, as I said before in this thread, you have no idea what I think. And you clearly have no idea what or how I felt about W. You assume an awful lot based a few posts, which is a major part of the problem here. I don't generally disagree with much of what you posted, you make good points. Your biggest problem, as we have time and time and time and time and time again is that you dilute your arguments with the silly personal attacks and name calling.

    Even if I make exceptionally good points, but constantly trash what you believe in, or something you identify with, how exactly do you expect that conversation to go?

    Yet as we see, you twist it so that it is our fault. And you wonder why people don't respond?

    Posted With Tapatalk
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    OLine. DLine. Secondary.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Goal.....level of discourse is an inherently ambiguous phrase. it has been used by some to demand a certain tone, language and style. in short...very subjective and easily abused to straightjacket things. It's rather obvious where the political fault lines fall in all of this. it's also rather obvious that, in the main, everyone is committed to positions that were staked out long ago. this notion of polite political discourse intended to educate, improve awareness, bind the bonds of BGO camaraderie, whatever....is bogus...a sham. to pretend otherwise, IMO, is to be self-delusional. especially...as I have already alluded to....in light of the knowledge about the content and targets of exchanges happening behind the OZ curtain.

    Entertain the possibility, Goal, that some think they are abiding by site ownership intent. IT IS OTHERS WHO KEEP INJECTING THEIR INTERPRETATION AS TO WHAT THAT INTENT IS. two different things. there are obvious boundaries such as vile language and direct personal assaults. but there is also a huge gray area where some might be trying to force their understanding of what "useful" dialogue consists of. what if one were to respond "well...you know...I find 99% of responses to be largely opinions (and thinly veiled personal assaults) as well...intended largely to support emotional commitments to social issues and value assertions I happen to disagree with. There is no middle ground on values unless 'respect' is intended to achieve buy-in into complete relativism". it's built into the context Goal.

    If the purpose for PA is hand holding then say so and let's be done with it. the bottom line is that there are opinions THAT ARE NOT WORTH RESPECTING. I don't care who voices them. some ideas are worth fighting. I note that others who claim a fastidious commitment to "the facts" basically do the same thing with posts such as "just more Obama bashing". I don't have a problem with that in the sense of asking that those sorts of emotionally grounded requests intended to shape discourse into avenues the complainant FEELS more comfortable with are not fit to be posted. I also believe meeting someone else's emotional needs falls rather low on the totem pole of my obligations - in a political blog. I can do that in Sons of....5 O'Clock, etc. I'm not here, in PA, to meet others ego needs. I abide by site rules (which appears to be successful since I have not experienced any bans) and draw joy from the Redskin side of the blog and our varied/informed fellow Redskin travelers.

    Ideas and outcomes, in my world, trump etiquette. that's just the way it is. you know that you and I have reached a stage of friendship precisely because we both elected to refrain from direct political exchanges given past history. the issues covered in PA are highly inflammatory. whether left, right or center many strike to the core of what one believes in and is willing to fight for. I don't see that changing and I view...behind ordinary bounds of vulgarity, personal threats, etc......tone shaping as fraudulent.
    Last edited by fansince62; 06-08-12 at 11:13 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  15. #15

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    one always has to consider responding to your posts since they always arrive from left field...exit via right field...and never touch any of the bases in between. I'll simply note the humor in a response that speaks to "a good thing" when the thread...which I wasn't really involved in....had denigrated into a series of accusations about tone, content, etc.

    Mike......you are comfortable in Mike world..... I applaud you for that. It demonstrates an ability to overcome adversity that is admirable.

    I'll leave it at that. ok....dude?
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  16. #16

    Join Date
    02-01-10
    Location
    Waynesboro, VA
    Posts
    9,169
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    65
    James Madison

    Default

    Al, I dont disagree with anything you're saying. My major point I think in this thread, is that by providing the emotional responses you reference, Extreme undermines the desired tone of this site, as well as his own arguments.

    It's not that I mind Obama bashing, Lord knows he deserves it, but I do mind when all Dems are idiots and the like. It's not constructive and it doesn't progress a conversation.

    Posted With Tapatalk
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    OLine. DLine. Secondary.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    why are you...who have been the source of so much friction over the years....so concerned about my posts? That what someone posts evidently doesn't matter to you is your problem. I stated ideas in political fora matter to me. that includes efforts to bound tone, style and content. you are projecting a mindset and purpose that fits your preconceptions....but misses the mark. there were no personal attacks in my posts until you predictably felt compelled to align first person singular with third person singular (as in the grand "you"). the bashing comment was carefully worded to highlight that that was an emotional comment....not a factual one.....and to suggest a double standard was in play.

    Mike...in the main...I don't have time for your silliness. I will respond...tedious as it might be....when the ideas matter.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  18. #18
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Al....did I, or did I not call that on the money?

    Predictability is a crazy thing guys. So often Goal, as you have proven time and time and time and time again, that while you complain about the discourse and derailments, you are constantly engaging, fueling and triggering what you claim to be against. Read carefully through what was posted in this thread. Not only did I not fire the first shot, but I never fired any shot. I simply asked for a rebuttal. Some members were quick to punch me in the face rather than address the topic, and that's what derailed this thread, no matter how hard it is churned and twisted to look like I did something wrong here when I clearly didn't.

    I just asked for someone to try to refute what I posted, but you took the approach, as you always seem to do with me, of bashing me and my opinion, rather than addressing the facts. I have no problem with you. I never have. In fact, I was actually under the impression that we got along fine in spite of our differences. It appears I was wrong, and it also appears that there is a growing group of members here that will attack me and Al, no matter what we say. So we can be brash, who cares? We don't bite our tongues all the time, big deal. But for certain people to sit around and pretend to always be taking the moral high road, when it is more often them lobbing the first shot, it's absurd. And to twist things with carefully placed verbage to make everyone you disagree with appear to be some jerkoff looking for a fight is something else a few members here have become quite good at mastering the art of.

    The simple fact is, I don't know what you believe, I will admit that. I never claimed to know though. I also did not engage in name calling, no matter how many times you keep claiming I did. It simply didn't happen.

    The truth in this case is that Lanky started a discussion on this bill, and his only addition to it was to snidely say at least the GOP is consistent. But did I attack Lanky? Absolutely not, and you will find no evidence that I did. Did I ever attack anyone else in here? Absolutely not, and you will find no evidence that I did. What I did do, was rebut what Lanky posted, by posting facts that clearly showed why the GOP voted the way they did, and why I believed it was the right thing to do.

    When I got no response, I addressed Lanky about it. Not by name calling, not by attacking, but by asking a simple question, and awaited a response. What I got instead, was slammed by multiple members because of what I posted. Neither you, nor anybody else ever attacked what I said, other than my opinion, and basically layed out the groundwork of why I'm an asshole that can't follow rules. Problem is, it appears that while you preached about the rules, I was the one who did follow the rules.

    People keep complaining about things getting derailed and spun out of control, but the pattern I'm noticing, is it's the same few people claiming to be trying to prevent that, that are always starting the spin, and definitely the ones constantly keeping it going, rather than getting back on track.

    Yesterday, i was having a bad day. I think that was fairly obvious. Mike called me out on it, and I addressed it and took the rest of the day off. Today, i come back to find that I'm still getting slammed in here by what appears to be a preemptive attack by several people. It's like you assumed I was gonna flip out, so you flipped out ahead of time, which is confusing, because nothing I said here should have triggered the response it did.

    So rather than tucking my tail between my legs and leaving like some may want me to, I will sit here and quietly await a response to the facts I posted. Facts that some of you are trying to deflect the thread away from, rather than address.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  19. #19
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goaldeje View Post
    Extreme undermines the desired tone of this site, as well as his own arguments.
    Really? I apologize for not being here to please you. But I will say again, I did nothing in this thread to undermine anything. Go back and read the posts, and you will clearly see who fires the only shots.

    hint: it wasn't me.

    And you're still avoiding addressing the facts I posted, and your accusations of my name calling that don't exist.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSr619 View Post
    Exactly what I thought. You offered nothing but silly games. Gave a good one, al.
    Posted via BGO Mobile Device

    Mike....Lanky posts a quote designed to provoke (as have others...so I have no problem with this)...one which comically doesn't define the core concept being discussed and which turns on terms that have been redefined for political ends (for example, the Obama administration has a much broader notion for middle class - essentially what they have been trying to shape as "the 99%" - than has been common in the past). this stuff blows right by you as you focus on a Romney staffer quote about jobs - not the essential problem of what "pay equity for women" means and why legislation directed to a specific identity group is needed. The Romney response (same one Limbaugh makes), btw, was an evasion also.

    subject for another thread...but the whole topic of identity politics demands its own consideration.

    If you want to wax philosophic about tone, informed exchange, etc., then do it. Ex actually did his homework. What followed was the usual bait-and-switch.

    anywho.....I don't have time at the moment to deal with your personality driven likes and dislikes. in the grand scheme of things......much more important and interesting challenges are happening elsewhere.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-16-10, 08:08 AM

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •