9046
Spin Zone / Re: Melissa v Springsteen
« on: April 14, 2016, 07:09:37 AM »Springsteen is a douche, but I support his right not to play. I never like his music anyway.Agreed. He should boycott ever playing again.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Springsteen is a douche, but I support his right not to play. I never like his music anyway.Agreed. He should boycott ever playing again.
That is a great pic. I love Clinton's expression.Wanna bet Bill's NOT looking at Hillary?
And thus lies the problem.I'm glad you're finally admitting that a Trump nominee will result in an electoral bloodbath. Every poll shows Trump turning solid red states into purple or blue.
The RNC is once again doing a poor job with a Presidential election. 2008 and 2012 were disasters with the RNC running unelectable candidates and it looks like they will go for 3 in a row.
Rience Priebus will go down as the laughing stock of the RNC after this fiasco.
I've seen some things about an Israeli connection to 9/11 and ISIS.Please, enlighten us.
Did we all see the video of Hillary Clinton testifying about how ISI was started and funded?
I actually agree with that, but for a somewhat different reason. I don't buy the religious angle, but I do think that creating a wedding cake is an artistic expression and to force someone to make a cake for someone that they did not want it, is forced speech which I think runs contrary to the free speech clause of the First Amendment.Fair enough. I agree.
We have the technology now to burn coal cleanly, yet Obama, and the Democrats couldn't wait to destroy the industry and THOUSANDS OF JOBS. Thank goodness for the fracking industry providing inexpensive natural gas.Didn't you hear? Bernie wants to shut down fracking not just for New York, but the entire nation.
Almost half of our electricity is generated by COAL. Where do you think the price is going to go?
Don't believe we have yet hit our peak. I might change my mind when we have to build walls to keep people in.I just thought about the irony of the wall. Trump wants to build a wall to keep people out, and Hillary wants to build a (figurative) wall to keep companies in.
Gary
I'm sure you won't be surprised that we disagree on this.Its one thing to sell a widget. It's another to require a person to devote personal, artistic (which is what wedding cakes are, according to my wife who is a baker, though not commercially), creative physical efforts, deliver the cake to the facility, set it up so it comports to the environment of the wedding, etc.
OK, I'm with you so far. The baker had no issues with baking cakes and selling them to homosexuals. Completely understand (and support) her religious belief that a gay marriage cannot be recognized before (her) God.
Somewhere a line was crossed. Help me out here, it has been established that the baker had no issue making and selling cakes to homosexuals, yet if this applies to baking a specific cake, this now intrudes on her belief - is that correct? Did the gay couple somehow request her "approval" or otherwise ask that the baker take part in the celebration? Perhaps this is unique to gay marriages, can't ever remember the baker doing anything except supply baked goods.
Can't say, I'm not Catholic, I'll leave that answer to someone more knowledgable.
Hmmm.... so it is the level of effort that determines when discrimination is OK??
We all have a pretty wide margin as to our freedom to think and believe. We do lose some of that freedom when we act on those thoughts and beliefs out there with other people. Guess the question I'm wrestling with is, at what point does a personal belief trump (nullify?) our existing laws and allow us to discriminate against another person.
I do hope you understand this is NOT a personal attack on anyone (including the baker). We all want to live our lives as freely as possible and I suspect that none of us want to suffer discrimination because we have a certain trait that someone else doesn't like.
Gary
In other words (damn I hate it when people say that),No, I think "the other guy" is pulling the wool over your (collectively, not you personally) eyes by implying that since he's über wealthy he can't be bought because he doesn't need the contributions (though unless he's going to throw $1 billion of his own fortune at his general campaign, he's going to need contributions at some point).
What you are saying is that they are both wrong,
But you and Jeff seem to think the other guy is more wrong because he is "the other guy".
You ain't half as bad as you want us to think you are!
I reread my post and I didn't get the switcheroo of timeline you did. Perhaps it's the sleep deprivation talking.So THAT'S your excuse for being AWOL from Pilot Spin? Pffft.
Congratulate me: I became a dad again, 6 days ago.
It may be coincidence, but it got fixed very soon after I reported it. That "report to moderator" button does have some benefit after all.Check your bank account. I'm sure Jason has that button rigged to draw out his "fee" of $1,000 - well deserved by the way.
hahahaTo believe your position, one would have to believe that people contribute to politicians out of detached and disinterested generosity, instead of expecting a quid pro quo.
Do you really believe that? You must. You have said it at least twice.
I disagree with you. That makes us really smart (or idiots per Jaybird).
There is always a market if you are selling a limited commodity of something of value. If one person doesn't buy it because of principal, someone else will. If a politician says you have to pay to play, and if you wish to play, then you pay. Otherwise, you are one of the unwashed masses.
Sure it does. But I don't believe the fairy tale that Cruz is some how not a part of this. The guy reeks of phony.So I ask about Trump's publicly-acknowledged and admitted payments to politicians for influence and likely quid pro quo, and you turn this around to me because of how you "feel" about Cruz?
So why has the Republican Party had so much difficulty attracting quality candidates? Why does the RNC keep resorting to the lame establishment types?
Perhaps it's more about control and power than actual principals? Ask yourself why die hard dedicated Republicans would support a Hillary presidency and why they have given Obama everything he's wanted unfettered?
Of course your answer will be "Trump this" or Trump that", but try to focus for a moment.