Comments
101 - 120 of 178 Comments Last updated Jan 4, 2013
Ur an Unwise American

Powell, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Dec 24, 2012
 
Thank you for your after-thought of compassion for my family. However, I doubt you are actually reading my posts. My issue is with OBAMA placing an additional tax on not only our income, by considering us wealthy, but also on our healthcare insurance.

I have never stated one word about being bitter towards people who cannot afford healthcare or expensive testings and medications needed to control their illnesses. My family and I not only give generously to organizations who financially and medically assist people with our same diseases, we also raise money each year from our very generous friends who have seen us suffer time and time again. We use all of our resources, including our friends, to make sure people get the help they need.

Your post makes no sense as you are tryng to make this into something it is not. Yes, we are blessed to have the financial ability to pay in full all of our heathcare costs (as if we have a choice). But us being able to afford all of it is also helping those who can't.

Don't put words in my mouth that I never wrote. OBAMA is my problem, not the poor. Like I stated before, just say thank you and move on.
WiseAmerican wrote:
<quoted text> I feel for your family and the hardships you go through with your health. That being said, your situation doesn't give you the right to be upset with people in poverty who gets medicaid. If your income was at or below the Federal poverty level, you could well be eligible to get "free" healthcare also. Now what will it be, poverty with free healthcare or where you are now? You seem bitter that poor people get the same treatment you're getting without paying the amount that you pay. They can't pay the healthcare cost because they are poor! What part of that don't you get?
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Dec 25, 2012
 
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Bite me, lil doggie. "Not authorized to practice." Some lawyers think this is interesting, some do not. I think, as a woman, it's interesting because you never know when you will have to be the major breadwinner again - particularly when you've admitted publicly to marital problems.
https://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp
You're confused.

"Voluntarily inactive" does not mean that she has surrendered her license. It means that her license is not "active". People choose this status quite often, for a variety of reasons. Look it up.

"An inactive lawyer may resume active status by submitting written or online notification of the intent to do so, and by paying the balance of the fee active lawyers must pay for the registration year in which active status is resumed. Inactive lawyers are also subject to a $25.00 per month late fee if registering late.(To change your status online, please see below.)

If you wish to change your registration status from active, inactive or retired, you may do so by clicking "Register Online" on the Lawyer Registration Home Page. After you login, please click either “Register for 2013" or “Update My Registration Information”. You will then need to cycle through the pages in our online registration program until you reach the “Current Registration Status” page. You may also change your status by sending us a written notification by regular mail, by fax or by e-mail. Please click here for our contact information."
http://www.iardc.org/registration/changeofreg... ;

As for you're assertion about "marital problems", its irrelevant.

Anyway...you're wrong about this.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Dec 25, 2012
 
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
What am I defense or prosecutor?
And this isn't fair because I am not a lawyer. I just know a lot of lawyers and work with them and play one on TV.
Makes no difference. From either side, you need to know the law,

To know the law, you need to know where to look. Here's a couple of hints:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/LegalResources/...

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/docs/

woof
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Dec 25, 2012
 
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, if you're really a lawyer you would know that deals and steals are made all the time and don't exactly make those chain e-mails and right wing media dolts programs - none of whom I listen to.
You don't know what you're talking about. The "deal" you're referring to is between Mrs. Obama and the ARDC of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and involves filling out a form, signing it, and paying a fee.

woof
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Dec 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

The GOP is what's wrong in politics today.

Mitch and Boehner in Dreamland
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 | Posted by Jim Hightower

LISTEN TO THIS COMMENTARY
Let's see – Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral collage tally. Democrats didn't just add to their senate majority, but added such feisty, progressive new senators as Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and Mazie Hirono. Even in the House, Dems won the national vote and gained seven seats. Plus, progressives scored victories coast to coast on ballot initiatives.

Wow – the only conclusion you can draw is that the Republican Party now has a mandate to set the policy agenda for the next four years!

Huh? Astonishingly, that's the conclusion of the GOP's Congressional leaders. I guess we should've expected as much from a party so deeply mired in delusion that its chief political guru, Karl Rove, kept hotly insisting on election night that Mitt Romney had won, even though he'd clearly lost.

Later, it was surreal to hear Republican House leader John Boehner declare: "We'll have as much of a mandate as [Obama] will." Then, going from surreal to insane, the GOP's senate sourpuss, Mitch McConnnell, proclaimed, "Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican controlled House."

Memo to Mitch and Boehner: America just had a year-long, nationwide debate on whether to keep pampering Wall Street hucksters and tax dodgers, privatize Medicare and Social Security, continue whacking the country's social safety net, maintain fat subsidies for Big Oil, repeal Obamacare, and other aspects of your Koch-headed, tinkle-down, ridiculous policies – and you lost!

Far from accepting such twaddle from these GOP fabulists, it's time for Obama and the Democrats in Congress to go to the people who elected them, mobilizing this great grassroots majority to push passage of a bold progressive agenda of percolate-up economic prosperity.

"Both sides say people gave them a mandate," Austin American Statesman," November 11, 2012.

Since: Sep 10

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Dec 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WiseAmerican wrote:
The GOP is what's wrong in politics today.
Mitch and Boehner in Dreamland
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 | Posted by Jim Hightower
LISTEN TO THIS COMMENTARY
Let's see – Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral collage tally. Democrats didn't just add to their senate majority, but added such feisty, progressive new senators as Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and Mazie Hirono. Even in the House, Dems won the national vote and gained seven seats. Plus, progressives scored victories coast to coast on ballot initiatives.
Wow – the only conclusion you can draw is that the Republican Party now has a mandate to set the policy agenda for the next four years!
Huh? Astonishingly, that's the conclusion of the GOP's Congressional leaders. I guess we should've expected as much from a party so deeply mired in delusion that its chief political guru, Karl Rove, kept hotly insisting on election night that Mitt Romney had won, even though he'd clearly lost.
Later, it was surreal to hear Republican House leader John Boehner declare: "We'll have as much of a mandate as [Obama] will." Then, going from surreal to insane, the GOP's senate sourpuss, Mitch McConnnell, proclaimed, "Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican controlled House."
Memo to Mitch and Boehner: America just had a year-long, nationwide debate on whether to keep pampering Wall Street hucksters and tax dodgers, privatize Medicare and Social Security, continue whacking the country's social safety net, maintain fat subsidies for Big Oil, repeal Obamacare, and other aspects of your Koch-headed, tinkle-down, ridiculous policies – and you lost!
Far from accepting such twaddle from these GOP fabulists, it's time for Obama and the Democrats in Congress to go to the people who elected them, mobilizing this great grassroots majority to push passage of a bold progressive agenda of percolate-up economic prosperity.
"Both sides say people gave them a mandate," Austin American Statesman," November 11, 2012.
And the crybaby, loser Republicans are now faced with going along with Obama or being nationally humiliated in both the inaugural address but the next state of the union speech.
igorant uranus

Marysville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Dec 25, 2012
 
i don't care none

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Dec 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
And the crybaby, loser Republicans are now faced with going along with Obama or being nationally humiliated in both the inaugural address but the next state of the union speech.
Interesting comment K...

Do you believe that the representatives elected by Republicans should just "get with the obama program" and forget about what the folks who voted for them sent them to Washington to do?

Possibly we should just do away with that pesky crybaby legislative branch... and if they get in the way the judicial branch as well.....

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Dec 25, 2012
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Makes no difference. From either side, you need to know the law,
To know the law, you need to know where to look. Here's a couple of hints:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/LegalResources/...
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/docs/
woof
I will. But I've have a few too many tall white russians and a happy day. Hope you did too Dukeroni...:-)

Bart Winokur...you'd like him.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting comment K...
Do you believe that the representatives elected by Republicans should just "get with the obama program" and forget about what the folks who voted for them sent them to Washington to do?
Possibly we should just do away with that pesky crybaby legislative branch... and if they get in the way the judicial branch as well.....
Are you deliberately playing obtuse? If the population overall wanted Romney's plan implemented, he would have won the election. Not only did he lose, Republicans lost 7 house seats and the Dems added 3, fairly radical Senators, so you have a losing argument.

The game is over, look at the scoreboard and adjust accordingly. To place the nation into default over sore losership is pathetic and is the typical behavior that causes me to despise the right.

When the little Bush got elected, I didn't expect the barely Dem. controlled Senate to try to push through healthcare reform.

It seems to me that you're wanting to repeat the same thing but are expecting a different result.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Dec 26, 2012
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you deliberately playing obtuse? If the population overall wanted Romney's plan implemented, he would have won the election. Not only did he lose, Republicans lost 7 house seats and the Dems added 3, fairly radical Senators, so you have a losing argument.
The game is over, look at the scoreboard and adjust accordingly. To place the nation into default over sore losership is pathetic and is the typical behavior that causes me to despise the right.
The only way we'll be in "default" is if we don't pay on the debt or don't pay Social Security benefits. There's enough discretionary spending that can be cut (including laying off some government workers if necessary) that we don't have to do that. True, some people wont be happy about those cuts, but the government doesn't exist to guarantee everyone's happiness. The debt must be paid off if future generations are to have any hope at a reasonably happy life. It must be top priority. Those future generations had nothing to do with creating this debt.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way we'll be in "default" is if we don't pay on the debt or don't pay Social Security benefits. There's enough discretionary spending that can be cut (including laying off some government workers if necessary) that we don't have to do that. True, some people wont be happy about those cuts, but the government doesn't exist to guarantee everyone's happiness. The debt must be paid off if future generations are to have any hope at a reasonably happy life. It must be top priority. Those future generations had nothing to do with creating this debt.
I have no qualms with paying down the debt. It's the idiocy that it can only be achieved through revenue and spending decreases that I have trouble with.

No matter what the right wing talkers say, George W. Bush created both a revenue and a spending problem all on his own.

Revenue needs raised and spending needs decreased, anyone who can't conceive of that is most likely in a medically vegetative state.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Dec 26, 2012
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no qualms with paying down the debt. It's the idiocy that it can only be achieved through revenue and spending decreases that I have trouble with.
No matter what the right wing talkers say, George W. Bush created both a revenue and a spending problem all on his own.
Revenue needs raised and spending needs decreased, anyone who can't conceive of that is most likely in a medically vegetative state.
Revenue must be increased, I agree. I don't, however, think that raising rates is the best way to do it. Raising rates means less left to do all those other revenue-creating things.... like buying or building things and hiring people (or to invest it with others who will).

I would like to see an item for some percentage of revenue be earmarked for paying on the principal (separate from interest payments).

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Dec 27, 2012
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Revenue must be increased, I agree. I don't, however, think that raising rates is the best way to do it. Raising rates means less left to do all those other revenue-creating things.... like buying or building things and hiring people (or to invest it with others who will).
I would like to see an item for some percentage of revenue be earmarked for paying on the principal (separate from interest payments).
You'll never find a post of mine stating taxes need raised (although I feel a portion of the 47% who pay no federal income tax should get some skin in the game) rather we need to eliminate all the loopholes and collect the actual percentage due. From there the rates could most likely be lowered.

We've gone round and round in the past over taxation systems. I'm all for one that collects every penny that is actually due with no exceptions. I favor one system, you favor another but they both achieve the same goal.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Dec 27, 2012
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll never find a post of mine stating taxes need raised (although I feel a portion of the 47% who pay no federal income tax should get some skin in the game) rather we need to eliminate all the loopholes and collect the actual percentage due. From there the rates could most likely be lowered.
We've gone round and round in the past over taxation systems. I'm all for one that collects every penny that is actually due with no exceptions. I favor one system, you favor another but they both achieve the same goal.
Even if the 47% has to pay some percentage into income taxes they have to have skin in the game.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Dec 27, 2012
 
Spookishere F trollsi wrote:
<quoted text>
Tim's mom should have thought ahead and realized she could not afford a kid before getting bred.
Then you should've either wore a condom or pay child support to your baby mama.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you deliberately playing obtuse? If the population overall wanted Romney's plan implemented, he would have won the election. Not only did he lose, Republicans lost 7 house seats and the Dems added 3, fairly radical Senators, so you have a losing argument.
The game is over, look at the scoreboard and adjust accordingly. To place the nation into default over sore losership is pathetic and is the typical behavior that causes me to despise the right.
When the little Bush got elected, I didn't expect the barely Dem. controlled Senate to try to push through healthcare reform.
It seems to me that you're wanting to repeat the same thing but are expecting a different result.
Huh?

This is a Republic, the "sore losers" were elected by folks that expect them to hold to their campaign promises........

Where did you come up with the concept that these legislators who were elected to office to "represent" their constituents should "go with the obama flow" K?
That is not the way our system of government was designed......

This is not about Romney, so quit trying to make it about him or Bush or whoever else you disagree with.

It is about our Representative form of government, and I for one am glad that it is working the way it should and obama can NOT steam roll over the minority..........

I for one want anyone (regardless of party) that disagrees with higher taxes, more spending, no debt limit, amnesty, the war on fossil fuels, etc. etc. to do their best to throw a wrench into the obama Chicago machine....

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I for one want anyone (regardless of party) that disagrees with higher taxes, more spending, no debt limit, amnesty, the war on fossil fuels, etc. etc. to do their best to throw a wrench into the obama Chicago machine....
Agreed. And there is a whole lot of crazy spending that can be cut before touching entitlements.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
This is a Republic, the "sore losers" were elected by folks that expect them to hold to their campaign promises........
Where did you come up with the concept that these legislators who were elected to office to "represent" their constituents should "go with the obama flow" K?
That is not the way our system of government was designed......
This is not about Romney, so quit trying to make it about him or Bush or whoever else you disagree with.
It is about our Representative form of government, and I for one am glad that it is working the way it should and obama can NOT steam roll over the minority..........
I for one want anyone (regardless of party) that disagrees with higher taxes, more spending, no debt limit, amnesty, the war on fossil fuels, etc. etc. to do their best to throw a wrench into the obama Chicago machine....
BB, I'm going to apply your logic to another scenario and maybe it will then make sense to you.

After the south was defeated in the civil war, there were still southern states that wanted to retain slavery. Being a Representative Republic, according to you, the states that wanted to keep slavery should have been allowed. There were states that still wanted to secede. Losing has consequences and failing to accept that is a form of insanity.

You seem to favor keeping things to each extreme so nothing gets accomplished. Politics and government is about meeting in the middle in the end.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Kosmik wrote:
You seem to favor keeping things to each extreme so nothing gets accomplished. Politics and government is about meeting in the middle in the end.
Sometimes "nothing gets accomplished" means "nothing gets further broken". The first step to getting out of a hole is usually to stop digging.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Pork Spray The New Mace? 4 min Tell the Truth 4
When Will Obama DIE? 7 min Tell the Truth 14
The Michael Brown Case 2 hr They cannot kill ... 51
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 2 hr Old Guy 30,441
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 2 hr Pale Rider 3,184
10 Investigates: Teachers Caught Recording, Con... 2 hr They cannot kill ... 3
RIP Ashley Stevens 4 hr E-Bob 2
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 15 hr Truth 2,281

Search the Columbus Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••