Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Lefty

Byron, GA

#25978 Feb 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No because I still pay money and a politician can still increase my taxes. A person not paying taxes should not be allowed to vote for that politician--I should. He has no stake in the game.
This is exactly what took place in my city a few years ago. They wanted to build all new school buildings. We have a lot of rental properties and some Section 8 residents. Why should they care if they tax me as a property owner so they can build their kids a new school? They didn't care because it wasn't their money building that school. The levy was voted down several times, but eventually it got passed, and now I'm paying an extra $500.00 per year so somebody else has a new school they can send their kids to. I just don't see how that's fair.
Disgusting, elitist ReTHUGlican crapola. Ohio's reTHUGlicans are already restricting voting in the hopes, combined with their gerrymandering, of holding onto power.

You should be paying a lot more in taxes.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25981 Feb 23, 2014
Our vote doesn't count anyway so what's the point.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#25982 Feb 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Are civil rights defined as having the ability to take money from others for your benefit?
No. Do you intend to continue to avoid the question?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25984 Feb 23, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
"James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 – June 26, 2003) was an American politician who served for 48 years as a United States Senator....Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
"The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century....
Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South."
"The Democratic candidate, Johnson, who had become president after Kennedy's assassination, spared no effort to win passage of a strong Civil Rights Act. After signing the landmark legislation, Johnson said to his aide, Bill Moyers; "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."[4] In contrast, Johnson's Republican opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believing it enhanced the federal government and infringed on the private property rights of businessmen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
The nice thing is that bigots used to be quite proud of their bigotry. Now they try to conceal what they still believe, and distort their shared history. I consider that progress!
Not wrong at all the Links provided tell the truth about the Democrats and their postion when it came to Civil Rights like LBJ said & Confirmed where him and the Liberals Democrats stood about Black America.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25985 Feb 23, 2014
Helen Roper wrote:
You worthless liberals are gonna get a big wake up call in November.
That is no doubt even the Liberals in California are turning on Obama and his Obamacare.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25986 Feb 23, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>Be prepared to eat those words in December, basketcase...
Liberal Democrats in California have made it very clear have no use for Obama's version of Liberalism and his Obamacare he pushed hard for and there is going to be alot of basketcases leaving Washington DC and heading back to where they came from come this November.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25987 Feb 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
My point of taxpayers being the only Americans allowed to vote is that it's their money they are voting on--not somebody else's. With our current system, politicians promise lowlifes all kinds of goodies, and they vote for that candidate because they are getting something for nothing. They are voting money out of my pocket into theirs.
This is what shocked Americans with Commie Care. They thought it was the standard taking from the wealthy and working and giving it to the non-working or low income people. Now they find out that they are paying for this insanity either directly or indirectly, and the polls are showing their dissatisfaction.
So True.

Since: Aug 12

Union City, GA

#25989 Feb 23, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
The only difference between my scenario and yours (other than my restrictions make more sense than yours) is that mine excludes you and yours doesn't. That is the only reason you object to mine.
The lesson to you should be that there exists in this country a great deal of people smarter and more qualified than you when it comes to making decisions of government so you should be very careful before you start deciding to disenfranchise people.
The current regime clearly has no business experience and its showing very well. Got it runnin like a well oiled piece of junk. ROFLMAO

Since: Aug 12

Union City, GA

#25990 Feb 23, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Your money is meaningless in the scope of the federal budget. Only people who pay $50,000.00 a year in tax should get to vote. How's that?
A person paying more taxes should have more say in how their money is spent.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#25991 Feb 23, 2014
It's pretty easy to lose the thread of the conversation here on Topix, especially when conversations sometimes span several days. Here's a brief summary of a recent exchange:
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
there is no way Southern Democrats changed their affiliation to Republican.
Old Guy wrote:
Wrong.
"James Strom Thurmond ... represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Not wrong at all the Links provided tell the truth about the Democrats and their postion when it came to Civil Rights like LBJ said & Confirmed where him and the Liberals Democrats stood about Black America.
I was responding to your assertion "there is no way Southern Democrats changed their affiliation to Republican", with a concrete example (Strom Thurmond changing from Democrat to Republican) and another link that discussed the transformation of the South in general from Democrat to Republican. Your one sentence reply leads me to believe that you did not read the articles at all, and still don't understand this basic bit of our recent history.

"Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strateg...
Helen Roper

Dublin, OH

#25992 Feb 24, 2014
I wonder how long it will take for Pelosi's husband to divorce her once he realizes that she'll be home all the time.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#25993 Feb 24, 2014
Helen Roper wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for Pelosi's husband to divorce her once he realizes that she'll be home all the time.
Helen Roper.....great character in 3's company.

PS: if Pelosi visited Ohio in the winter her plastic surgery would get hard, and someone may mistake her for a shovel.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#25994 Feb 24, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you too stupid to detect a dog and pony show when you see one?
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/14845/...
Kind of funny of you showing a link from burnt orange. That sounds just like what the Chinese call their highest level warning they have for smog and pollution alerts.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#25995 Feb 24, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
Helen Roper.....great character in 3's company.
PS: if Pelosi visited Ohio in the winter her plastic surgery would get hard, and someone may mistake her for a shovel.
You and Helen need to take another oxy and go back to sleep. It's nice when the intelligence level of posts are not lower than the last basement step. Or you two could hook up, you seem meant for each other.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#25996 Feb 24, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text> You and Helen need to take another oxy and go back to sleep. It's nice when the intelligence level of posts are not lower than the last basement step. Or you two could hook up, you seem meant for each other.
intelligence level of posts?

see above.......written by someone with ZERO substantive thought to answer a post without making an abject fool of themselves, by proving they only spin and distort to make themselves feel accomplishment the only time in their pathetic life.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#25997 Feb 24, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
intelligence level of posts?
see above.......written by someone with ZERO substantive thought to answer a post without making an abject fool of themselves, by proving they only spin and distort to make themselves feel accomplishment the only time in their pathetic life.
Good going, you just described yourself to a tee. Got to give you credit though, you typed more than one line at a time. Wait a minute, that was granny describing you and she doesn't know how to use the reply. That was way to smart to come from you. It's above the third grade level.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25998 Feb 24, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
Helen Roper.....great character in 3's company.
PS: if Pelosi visited Ohio in the winter her plastic surgery would get hard, and someone may mistake her for a shovel.
Dude, that shovel comment is the first funny thing I have heard you say on here. Freaking funny.

And they say there's no bipartisanship.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25999 Feb 24, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this from the top so even people like you can understand.
The Republicans had no desire for amnesty. They realize that they are lagging votes in the Hispanic community. So they put on this stunt to make it look like they really want amnesty. Then they throw in a last minute politician to stop the process.
Even though the Republicans could gain great favor among their business contributors with amnesty, they also know that by actually doing so, it would be the end of Republican leadership in national elections forever. This is because statistically, Mexican immigrants tend to vote strongly Democrat.
So one has to ask themselves: why would Republicans push for more Mexican citizenship if it would likely mean their demise? It just doesn't make sense. But if you put on this production as if you really want to see all these Mexican illegals gain citizenship, it's the only possible way to syphon some of these votes from Democrats. It also panders to their business supporters.
Let me give you another example: Republicans have a strong objection to abortion. Yet, when Republicans had leadership of Congress and Senate under President Bush, they didn't do very much to outlaw abortion. In fact, it was barely an issue.
Dog and Pony show. Getting the votes of the religious right by protesting abortion, they are able to capitalize on that issue. When the time comes to actually do something about abortion, nothing! Why is that?
The reason is they want to look good to their support base, but also know that it's mostly Democrat voters that exercise their right to have an abortion. So again, why would Republicans actually want a law that would create more likely Democrat voters in the future and put them out of business?
Yes, yes. We all know that the GOP are a conniving lot. Willing to say or do anything to get elected. Now if only you guys could understand that most of us don't look at Obama as the second coming. He's a mediocre president. It's the same conniving that you describe with the GOP that made us willing to vote for anyone over anything the same people who inflicted us with GW Bush had to offer. Obama is ten times better than Bush. The fact is, I would have voted for a rock that kinda looks like it had a face, over Mitt Romney. It's that same catering to the religious right that ruined the GOP, and it's those same religious fascist Tea Baggers that the GOP is trying to flick off themselves like a booger on their finger. The bottom line is you follow much of the religious right's views on abortion and gays that has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. You wonder why people think of you and yours as being racist, when it is due to the numerous, propaganda based "scandals" that you are so willing to believe, even after they have been proven to be lies. Did you know that there were 18 Benghazi like attacks on Bush's watch? Not a peep about those. Do you realize that Bush's needless war cost us around 800 billion dollars? Not a peep about that. Some how, you guys have been convinced that a purely corporate agenda, which is why you have your views on the climate, and on labor in this country, is somehow better than the people we elect to run this country. It's isn't.
Canton

Canton, OH

#26000 Feb 24, 2014
The only people I have ever known to get an abortion were wealthy, young Christian Republicans that didn't want their entire education and their careers shut down by an unwanted child. This I know first hand, because one of them was my cousin. How many abortions were due to small town church communities, and the absolute shun they would place on the upstanding, Christian families who had a young, pregnant unmarried daughter? If it's the Democrats that are so willing to get an abortion, then why has the abortion rate dropped 13% under Obama?
Canton

Canton, OH

#26001 Feb 24, 2014
Exxon Mobile CEO Sues To Stop Fracking Near His Texas Ranch

http://beta.slashdot.org/story/198575

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Findlay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
free money, no such thing Thu ceasar 1
Joella Hamlin - anyone know her? Sep 22 Findlay Gurl 1
Looking for Tom Hall any one? Sep 14 serching 1
Weekly rate motels Sep 1 Just wondering 1
Review: Bubbles Pet Salon (Jun '15) Aug '16 Candy Desgrange 2
sheri Aug '16 alwaysbeencrazy 1
Brandi Taylor Aug '16 mtm 1

Findlay Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Findlay Mortgages