Blog of Mass Destruction - Latest Comments

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:33:12 -0000

Not bad!

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

andreafreethinker1 — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:12:55 -0000

Just thinking about him getting elected is giving stay at home moms nightmares

Re: Romney…."Get Teacher Unions Out"

Sweetbearies — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:55:16 -0000

The good old bait and switch. Blame the weak while the powerful get away with everything. Rather than having corporations pay a reasonable amount of tax, we would like to go back to the days when teachers made pittance wages. Perhaps would should look at what they are doing in Finland where they have eliminated standardized testing, and teachers are well compensated and prestigious. Paying teachers less, taking away their benefits, and creating baseless standardized testing is not making our education system better. Ultimately as a kid you have to have a voracious appetite for reading and knowledge outside the classroom, or the luck for your parents to be able to afford a private prestigious school for you.

Re: Romney…."Get Teacher Unions Out"

Overtaxed Voter — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:43:08 -0000

Come on Da_King....

You know how Democrats hate to admit that FDR was right about public unions.

Re: Romney…."Get Teacher Unions Out"

Overtaxed Voter — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:41:52 -0000

Much like how Obama can't run on his economic record, what EDUCATIONAL accomplishment can any teacher's union point to as having achieved?

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:05:23 -0000

There's no excuses. Mitt hasn't even been elected yet, and you're claiming he's been hurting stay at home moms.

What a fibber.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

andreafreethinker1 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:47:29 -0000

I didnt fib you cant see that facts if they were right in front of your nose. All you do is make excuses

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:53:54 -0000

You claimed Mitt HAS hurt stay at home moms, Andrea. It's becoming clear that you fibbed.

As a serial fibber, you stereotype your party quite well.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:20:43 -0000

The sounds of silence say everything.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

andreafreethinker1 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:30:52 -0000

It surely will not hurt the wealthy stay at home moms - but will hurt any that rely on different services Mitt and Ann seem to be out of touch with the moms who have to worry about how to plan for day care, provide for school lunches, and staying within a budget. Romneys problem is not their wealth but their inability to see beyond that worldand the everyday hardships many face and to not care. Actually he sterotypes the repubican party quiet well. and what they have become - a party for one group of people only - the rich .

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:35:21 -0000

You claimed Mitt Romney has made it more difficult for stay at home moms.

Ryan's budget has not been voted on or implemented and thus hasn't hurt anyone. I believe it will help stay at home moms, as well.

Even if Ryan's budget had been passed and was hurting stay at home moms, Romney wouldn't have been able to vote on it in any case.

So how has Romney made it more difficult for stay at home moms?

Re: Romney…."Get Teacher Unions Out"

andreafreethinker1 — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:46:33 -0000

Why doesn't he go after the police union? Might be because they support Republicans usually ?

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

andreafreethinker1 — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:29:19 -0000

He supports the Ryan budget which Cuts Women, Infants & Children Program (WIC) Cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Cuts Head Start and child care assistance Cuts job training Cuts Pell Grants Cuts health services for low- and moderate-income families Raises Medicare eligibility age & turns it into a voucher (56% of Medicare beneficiaries are women)

so unless you are a rich stay at home mom with these cuts you cant even afford to stay home.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:41:55 -0000

No need to apologize,just trying to understand your position. If you aren't saying they're not the same then you say they are the same. You also say she is both. How can there be a both (as in two things) if they are the same?

Mostly, I'm just making a point in a silly manner showing English words have meanings,and using those meanings improperly leads to senseless comments such as you made above.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:37:07 -0000

I didn't claim that. This is even more boring. I probably won't reply again unless you can think of something substantive or interesting or funny or something.

Sorry.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:35:08 -0000

So they're not the same?

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:34:11 -0000

She's both, as I already stated. This is actually pretty boring.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:27:40 -0000

Wait, is she both or are they the same?

This is fun.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:26:06 -0000

"but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go"

Remarkable how Romney tends to keep those details out of his conversations a lot. I guess if he takes a stance and actually provides details then it's just more items for him to change positions on when he gets in front of a different crowd and has to pander to them. It's either that or he just wants to keep his positions private between himself and his ultra wealthy controllers, er, donation sources. For the rest of America it'll just be a big surprise!

By the way, what is your point with regard to Kerry's wife? I don't recall the Senator referring to his wife as his source on the economy for women.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:24:17 -0000

She's obviously both an insider and adviser. You'll just have to get over it.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:06:26 -0000

Never made that claim in my life about Halliburton. Also, using words for their proper meanings in not "splitting hairs". It is a demonstration of one's ability to comprehend language, in this case, English.

Insider = person with access to "inside" or otherwise private/confidential information.

Adviser = person who provides their opinions or information for consideration to the party or parties making said decision(s).

An adviser may or may not also be an insider (I would suggest that to be effective this would be all but necessary at least in part) but an insider is not by definition an adviser and would not need to be in any way shape or form to be considered as such.

That concludes your English lesson for the day. Perhaps you and the King can get a group rate going?

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:00:18 -0000

Insider, adviser, it's all the same unless you're trying to deflect by splitting hairs. It's hilarious to see you lemmings in action, especially considering that it wasn't so long ago you all were claiming Halliburton was running the country.

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:38:36 -0000

I know... right? How dare Hilary "give her an early birthday present" that Ann "loved!"?

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

Reality_Speaks — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:04:45 -0000

Ah, so now she's an insider (from 3 years ago), not an adviser. And the story evolves as it goes...

Re: Rich Mom-Poor Mom

lawrenceD — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:02:11 -0000

She's an administration insider, having visited the WH more times than Gen. Patreaus. It's really not a debatable point.