1 - 10 Next
Excellent points. And this is a natural follow-on to the voter ID initiatives that people pushed so mightily during the Bush administration. Oh. Wait. There WAS not push for strengthening voter ID laws during the Bush administration. Sorry. My bad. At least the main point is valid, voter fraud is rampant in this country. Oh, wait, what's that you say? it's NOT rampant? No kidding. I didn't know that...
In response to:

Mitt Romney Said WHAT?!

Groobiecat Wrote: Jun 21, 2012 12:02 PM
" Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it’s lethal to him in a way that it wouldn’t be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature — as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs." Indeed. Because Bush said basically the same thing. Difference between the two? Not too much. http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/06/quote-unquote-bush-vs-romney.html
In response to:

Extend the Bush Tax Cuts Now

Groobiecat Wrote: May 18, 2012 3:50 PM
That is a *great* idea Larry. Because, you know, they've created SOOOO many jobs since they were extended by Obama in December 2010. Because, with all that extra cash, the rich and CEOs create more jobs, right? Oh, wait. No, that's not right. AAPL took it's $100 billion not to create jobs, but to provide dividends for the already wealthy. Hmmm. Now, I'm confused. Oh well. Whatever you say, Larry. I'm sure you're right(wing).
In response to:

NBC Revives Howard Stern

Groobiecat Wrote: May 18, 2012 8:59 AM
"They just never stop believing that shock will sell." LOL. Really. So, Fox, which aired, "Who's your daddy," where one adoptee faced off against 25 potential daddies for a chance at a payday and a paternal figure, and if the adult-child guessed which man did the deed, it meant $100,000 and a reunion. One wrong guess meant the money went to the convincing false father. --that's not outrageous? That's family values? That's not shock TV? Right. So, the mirror, apparently, points outwardly...
Hey, great piece; if you like pedantic listings of the number of times the word "shall" is listed in legislation. But if you're interested in how the Massachusetts citizens--you know, the entities that actually use and are impacted by that state's healthcare system--feel about it, readers need to look elsewhere. Like, say, a poll that surveys how people feel about it: "The poll by Market Decisions, a research and consulting group, found that 84 percent of residents are satisfied with the Massachusetts plan, which requires most adults to have health insurance." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/massachusetts-health-care_n_834184.html) Or, just keep talking about legislation and bureaucrats without focusing on what's important.
In response to:

3 Electable Tea Party Hotties

Groobiecat Wrote: May 14, 2012 1:40 PM
At least this person addressed the comment and issue...
In response to:

3 Electable Tea Party Hotties

Groobiecat Wrote: May 14, 2012 1:40 PM
Well, I appreciate the response. The republican party has basically been hijacked from moderates and centrists by reactionary extremists. Reagan wouldn't make it in today's republican party because he'd be considered too moderate. Isn't that also ironic? As for RP, well, that's a much longer conversation, and while I agree with some of his stances, his belief that Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution be rescinded is wrong-headed. Ultimately, his vision, while perhaps well-meaning, would lead to a complete plutocracy. The underlying assumption--that somehow corporations are more competent/capable than the government isn't correct. I've worked in both, and I know very well that it's not true. But thanks for the feedback on the comment.
The president's policies have us stuck? So, liberals at the Wall Street Journal have it all wrong then? By Justin Lahart "One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought." http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/ Thoughts? Yeah. Didn't think so, since this doesn't fit with the rightist narrative.
LOL> Right. Embarassingly stupid. Oh, and Obama ate dog meat when he was a kid. Say that some more. In other news, Mitt Romney doesn't remember bullying the kid, but he definitely didn't know he was gay! LMAO. Logic, much? Jeezus, this stuff writes itself!
Yeah. Basic cognitive dissonance. President makes history endorsing rights of people who should already have them, and here you have, on the other hand, a prep school thug/bully attacking the rights of another student. http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-comes-out-in-support-of-gay.html It's one thing to disagree on policy, but why do you guys constantly put forth priggish, privileged hyper annoying, aggressively not smart white boys as your leaders. It's embarrassing for us. I can't imagine what it's like for you.
1 - 10 Next