What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

amherstblackbear said:
Is LePage a teapartier?

Just curious. My dad is usually pretty solid for the GOP, but was leaning independent this year. Something about LePage wasn't sitting right with him...
Click to expand...

LePage tried to distance himself from the teaparty, but they were pretty hot for him. He is volatile, socially conservative (does not support same sex marriage, or a woman's access to abortion, and he even said he would like to repeal Maine's laws making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation - even though they were approved by a majority of voters), thinks global warming is myth, the earth is 6000 years old, and wants creationism taught in schools. I think Maine missed the boat with Cutler, more fiscally conservative than the democratic option but supports marriage equality, is pro-choice, and is not bat-**** crazy like LePage the tea-bagger. I bet all of the Mitchell voters would switch in a second now rather than let Mr 38% LePage run the show. In a runoff Cutler would win by at 15%+. We are in trouble.

Plus he was CEO of Mardens, which is three steps below Wal*Mart on the socioeconomic ladder. (Although I did get a nice $300 Deuter backpack there for $150)
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Kepler said:
So you've read it? It could be a detailed outline of specific cuts and proposals. Or it could be 22 pages of empty platitudes:



This, at least, is a good idea:



Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reform. Institute YouCut by all means, but then listen when millions of us propose an across-the-board 50% cut in the military budget and an end to all corporate welfare. Somehow I don't think that's what he has in mind. :)

Top campaign contributors to Eric Cantor:

1. Comcast
2. McGuireWoods (huge health care lawfirm / lobbyist)
3. Goldman Sachs
4. Dominion Resources (coal and nuclear)
5. Blue Cross / Blue Shield
Click to expand...

The corporate welfare article is about PAC's. I don't see corporate welfare in that article (although it would be helpful if corporate welfare wasn't in the same 'vague terms used to scare up votes' dictionary as big gummint etc. If corporate PAC's should be eliminated, would you agree that all PAC's should be eliminated, including those supporting older americans, minority groups, trade unions, ecology groups, non-profits, religions, colleges etc. or only corporations?
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Kepler said:
They could also try to give the President the line item veto again like they yammered about all through the 80's. I cannot for the life of me understand why they dropped that... ;)
Click to expand...

Because they passed it, Clinton tried using it, and SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers.

It'd take a Constitutional Amendment to add the line-item veto at this point.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

unofan said:
Because they passed it, Clinton tried using it, and SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers.

It'd take a Constitutional Amendment to add the line-item veto at this point.
Click to expand...
based on what I've seen of its use at the state level where it has been allowed, I'm not sure we really want it.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Shirtless Guy said:
based on what I've seen of its use at the state level where it has been allowed, I'm not sure we really want it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would have to be pretty well defined. I know here in Wisconsin, the governor is allowed to cut out bits and pieces of legislation, until what he's signing looks nothing like the original bill.

Although the power was reined in slightly last year. http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/45624277.html
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Where have I seen this before... I feel like it may have happened so close to home... Weird.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

dxmnkd316 said:
Is this serious? You really think she wants more mercury in the air? ... I mean really?
Click to expand...

While not a 100 percent equal comparison, President Bush wanted (maybe did, I don't recall) to increase the allowable amount of Lead in drinking water, despite pretty solid evidence linking Lead exposure in kids and learning disabilities.

With regards to the EPA, Palin is like Bush only with glasses and a dress. Her comments on Fox and other media agencies, seem to imply that she would like to destroy an entire agency (on the premise of smaller government) because some of her supporters don't like following the rules.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

UMDbulldogs#1 said:
While not a 100 percent equal comparison, President Bush wanted (maybe did, I don't recall) to increase the allowable amount of Lead in drinking water, despite pretty solid evidence linking Lead exposure in kids and learning disabilities.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that about Bush and lead in the water.

Are you sure you aren't thinking about arsenic? If you are, then you are very confused. The standard on arsenic in drinking water had been 50 parts per billion for a very long time. Then, a lame duck Bill Clinton decided it was absolutely urgent for the US to raise the standard to 10 parts per billion. When George Bush got into office, he decided not to act on it immediately, because it was political trap, and because the evidence was rather flimsy. Of course this enabled people to scream "George Bush is poisoning our water".

Here's some research on the matter
A few studies found no harmful effects in persons in the United States who throughout their lifetimes drank water containing arsenic at levels of 50 ppb to 100 ppb.
Click to expand...

Edit: I found this. It sounds very Blame Bush! to me, but maybe it has merit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Patman said:
ok... so how about those farmers put out of a farm in CA to save the delta smelt... and yes, how about classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

edit: there are no agencies of super-jesus light love and free cookies. They are staffed by people and some of them are staffed by ideologues.
Click to expand...

The Endangered Species Act is not a US EPA "thing". It is enforced from the Department of the Interior (NOAA and US Fish and Wildlife). We can debate it's use, but to throw the EPA under the bus for this one is very disingenuous.

I won't claim to know the whole story, or the area for that matter, but I question whether the Central Valley is an area that is supposed to be farm land or if it only exists because of (debatable) irrigation practices.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

UMDbulldogs#1 said:
The Endangered Species Act is not a US EPA "thing". It is enforced from the Department of the Interior (NOAA and US Fish and Wildlife). We can debate it's use, but to throw the EPA under the bus for this one is very disingenuous.

I won't claim to know the whole story, or the area for that matter, but I question whether the Central Valley is an area that is supposed to be farm land or if it only exists because of (debatable) irrigation practices.
Click to expand...

I really, really hope you're following this post up with an explanation of how you got dunked on by WeWantMore
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

WeWantMore said:
I've never heard that about Bush and lead in the water.

Are you sure you aren't thinking about arsenic? If you are, then you are very confused. The standard on arsenic in drinking water had been 50 parts per billion for a very long time. Then, a lame duck Bill Clinton decided it was absolutely urgent for the US to raise the standard to 10 parts per billion. When George Bush got into office, he decided not to act on it immediately, because it was political trap, and because the evidence was rather flimsy. Of course this enabled people to scream "George Bush is poisoning our water".

Here's some research on the matter


Edit: I found this. It sounds very Blame Bush! to me, but maybe it has merit.
Click to expand...

It was at the very beginning of his first term. He proposed diluting (no pun intended) the Clean Water Act to not include protections for certain water ways (intrastate, non-navigable wetlands and headwater streams). By removing these protections you essentially create a mechanism for increasing the amount of contaminants (heavy metals like lead, etc.) in drinking water.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

In 2006 it was Washington... in 2008 it was Minnesota... in 2010 its Connecticut... do the democrats keep ballot bags hanging around just in case or do we just call this coincidence.

Remember folks "by any means necessary" because "we're good for you".
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Patman said:
In 2006 it was Washington... in 2008 it was Minnesota... in 2010 its Connecticut... do the democrats keep ballot bags hanging around just in case or do we just call this coincidence.

Remember folks "by any means necessary" because "we're good for you".
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the old Abbot and Costello routine, where Bud is dividing the money with Lou: "One for me, one for you. One, two for me, two for you. One, two, three for me, three for you. . ."

As for extending the voting hours at polls, let me put on my Carnac turban and guess that they were inner city precincts. This is a classic ballot box stuffing tactic, used by a judge in St. Louis in '00. As far as I know, the rule in every precinct in the country is--if you're in line when the polls close, you get to vote, no matter how long it takes. So there's no need to extend the hours the polls are open--unless you intend to fan out and bring busloads of "voters" to the polls, past the mandated time, to tip the outcome in a close vote. It stinks. And it's blatant fraud. Democrats attempt to cheat whenever they think they need to.

Take so-called "provisional ballots," which came into vogue after Florida in '00. The idea is for people who aren't registered, or trying to vote in the wrong precincts, aren't eligible to register or aren't eligible to vote to be given these ballots as insurance against the very limited number of people who actually are hosed by errors. Democratic advocates of "provisional ballots" wanted the folks who cast these "ballots" not to have to do so in the precincts where they allege they're entitled to vote. It would be so much easier and more efficient if you're churning out thousands of phony votes, to bring busloads of "voters" from all over town to just one central location to cast their "provisional ballots." The fact that people who are actually eligible to vote and properly registered are required to do so in their assigned precincts is irrelevant. I repeat, Democrats attempt to cheat whenever they think they need to.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Old Pio said:
Reminds me of the old Abbot and Costello routine, where Bud is dividing the money with Lou: "One for me, one for you. One, two for me, two for you. One, two, three for me, three for you. . ."
Click to expand...

I remember that as a Bugs Bunny routine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top