Average Wage Drops 23% Under obama!

[smitty]

Part time jobs increase while pay decreases...

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-usa-mayors-jobs-idUSKBN0GB1T920140811

[LumRaiderFan]

Be careful, Smitty...you may be accused of flooding the forum with "right wing" threads, whether true or not.

Feel free to use profanity and even call others idiots, pricks and stupid...that seems to be acceptable.

It's a shame the moderators wouldn't actually take care or the real problem(s).

[thetragichippy]

Be careful, Smitty...you may be accused of flooding the forum with "right wing" threads, whether true or not.

Feel free to use profanity and even call others idiots, pricks and stupid...that seems to be acceptable.

It's a shame the moderators wouldn't actually take care or the real problem(s).

 

I don't think that is even disputable......Since August 1st, Smitty has posted 23 threads and Nash 17......The only other one close is TxHoops with 15 (and that was by design)...if you are curious EOC had 9 and BG had 5

 

I do agree the moderators should have been on top of this way earlier.....the name calling and attacking is pointless.

[stevenash]

Here is another "terribly biased" piece.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/04/part-time-low-wage-jobs/2613483/

 

As an aside- None of my posts include name calling/personal insults and I have always referred to our President as President Obama or Mr. Obama-  I also have never claimed to be a member of the Tea Party ( although I very much support the position of smaller government and lower taxes).  I tend to "over post" when I am constantly barraged with teabagger generalizations/accusations as well as being told I am not intellectually adequate to converse with someone else.  I am no Einstein, but neither is anyone else who is posting here.

[smitty]

Be careful, Smitty...you may be accused of flooding the forum with "right wing" threads, whether true or not.

Feel free to use profanity and even call others idiots, pricks and stupid...that seems to be acceptable.

It's a shame the moderators wouldn't actually take care or the real problem(s).

;)  LumRaider, the Moderators know what the problems are.  They are taking care of it in their own time and way!

[LumRaiderFan]

I don't think that is even disputable......Since August 1st, Smitty has posted 23 threads and Nash 17......The only other one close is TxHoops with 15 (and that was by design)...if you are curious EOC had 9 and BG had 5
 
I do agree the moderators should have been on top of this way earlier.....the name calling and attacking is pointless.

Why are we keeping track of posts...is there a limit.

Moderators should moderate by the rules...no rule against number of posts.

TXHoops was posting to make a silly point...Smitty was not.

[thetragichippy]

Why are we keeping track of posts...is there a limit.

Moderators should moderate by the rules...no rule against number of posts.

TXHoops was posting to make a silly point...Smitty was not.

 

Keeping track?, I went back 13 days......just to back up my point that the appearance of flooding is obvious by the people who want to see it.

 

If there is no rules on number of post, it really does not make any difference why Hoops was posting......

 

And for the record, I agree with A LOT of what Smitty and Nash post......but trading talking points back and forth was getting old......And the fact that only the same few people participate in the post, I'm not alone in that opinion.

[LumRaiderFan]

Keeping track?, I went back 13 days......just to back up my point that the appearance of flooding is obvious by the people who want to see it.

If there is no rules on number of post, it really does not make any difference why Hoops was posting......

And for the record, I agree with A LOT of what Smitty and Nash post......but trading talking points back and forth was getting old......And the fact that only the same few people participate in the post, I'm not alone in that opinion.

If you can't see the difference in Smitty's posts and those from ECO and most recently TXHoops (by design) I won't bother to explain it.

As far as others agreeing with you, no doubt... the moderators seemed to take the path of no moderation and then a knee-jerk reaction to solve the problem.

The forum is getting boring...national policy seems to be a nuisance and a bore to many.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

No, please explain it.

We're waiting.

If you can't see the difference in Smitty's posts and those from ECO and most recently TXHoops (by design) I won't bother to explain it.
As far as others agreeing with you, no doubt... the moderators seemed to take the path of no moderation and then a knee-jerk reaction to solve the problem.
The forum is getting boring...national policy seems to be a nuisance and a bore to many.

[stevenash]

This has all come about because some are offended by articles that Smitty posts.  I maintain that Smitty is as entitled to post what he wants as anyone else is.  If what he posts is so offensive to someone else, that someone else is more than entitled to offer their reasoning why his post is not credible.  I dont think they ought to call him stupid or ignorant because, in reality, one cannot make an accurate judgement about someone based solely upon what he posts on a message board.  Does Smitty post articles that arent what they are  represented to be?  Obviously some believe that.  Does Smitty receive personal insults because he posted something?  You bet he does.  I would suggest to you that name calling/insults is every bit as in poor taste as posting something that may not be accurate.   I vigorously disagree with those who would like to install a form of censorship against articles that some might interpret in a manner that the "wanna be de facto censors" dont want them to be interpreted.  Let the chips fall where they may.  If the article is as pathetic as some say it is, nobody will honor it anyway.  As said earlier, the wanna be de facto censors are the very people who celebrate tolerance and diversity.  I suggest that they practice it when it comes to opinions of others.

[LumRaiderFan]

This has all come about because some are offended by articles that Smitty posts.  I maintain that Smitty is as entitled to post what he wants as anyone else is.  If what he posts is so offensive to someone else, that someone else is more than entitled to offer their reasoning why his post is not credible.  I dont think they ought to call him stupid or ignorant because, in reality, one cannot make an accurate judgement about someone based solely upon what he posts on a message board.  Does Smitty post articles that arent what they are  represented to be?  Obviously some believe that.  Does Smitty receive personal insults because he posted something?  You bet he does.  I would suggest to you that name calling/insults is every bit as in poor taste as posting something that may not be accurate.   I vigorously disagree with those who would like to install a form of censorship against articles that some might interpret in a manner that the "wanna be de facto censors" dont want them to be interpreted.  Let the chips fall where they may.  If the article is as pathetic as some say it is, nobody will honor it anyway.  As said earlier, the wanna be de facto censors are the very people who celebrate tolerance and diversity.  I suggest that they practice it when it comes to opinions of others.

Couldn't agree more... Rather than enforce the rules we'll give the forum a ridiculous name and a pointless warning.

Gotta give it to you TXHoops...well played.

[NorthoftheBorder]

Be careful, Smitty...you may be accused of flooding the forum with "right wing" threads, whether true or not.

Feel free to use profanity and even call others idiots, pricks and stupid...that seems to be acceptable.

It's a shame the moderators wouldn't actually take care or the real problem(s).

I was guilty of calling someone a prick.  If I need to be banned so be it!  It might help me find something that is more productive to do in life with that time!  But I was only telling the truth when I did it!

[TxHoops]

This has all come about because some are offended by articles that Smitty posts. I maintain that Smitty is as entitled to post what he wants as anyone else is. If what he posts is so offensive to someone else, that someone else is more than entitled to offer their reasoning why his post is not credible. I dont think they ought to call him stupid or ignorant because, in reality, one cannot make an accurate judgement about someone based solely upon what he posts on a message board. Does Smitty post articles that arent what they are represented to be? Obviously some believe that. Does Smitty receive personal insults because he posted something? You bet he does. I would suggest to you that name calling/insults is every bit as in poor taste as posting something that may not be accurate. I vigorously disagree with those who would like to install a form of censorship against articles that some might interpret in a manner that the "wanna be de facto censors" dont want them to be interpreted. Let the chips fall where they may. If the article is as pathetic as some say it is, nobody will honor it anyway. As said earlier, the wanna be de facto censors are the very people who celebrate tolerance and diversity. I suggest that they practice it when it comes to opinions of others.

Permit to inquire if you would consider calling those who vote for Democrats "low information voters" would qualify as "name calling" or an "insult"? If not, would you agree that Rush Limbaugh, the man from whom Smitty and others got this term, certainly uses it as an insult? Would you not be able to concur that calling someone names and then complaining about the favor being returned is hypocritical (although to be fair, I haven't seen Smitty complain)?

Finally, I don't disagree with you that he can post what he wants within the rules of the board. That is beside the point. You are also correct that no one will honor threads that are not compelling. In point of fact, I would submit that the majority of these cut and paste threads have no responses. And with the ones that do, it is usually a single comment of approval from you or LumRaiderFan.

At the end of the day, if that's what you guys want this board to be, okay. It just gets to the point where those looking for a real discussion no longer visit it or post. And I would argue that is exactly what has happened with some of better contributors to this board.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

TxHoops, the rules apparently don't apply to them because they are right and anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid is wrong!


WE DUN KNEED NO KRITYKUL THINKENG ROWND THEZE PARTS OF TWN

[LumRaiderFan]

Permit to inquire if you would consider calling those who vote for Democrats "low information voters" would qualify as "name calling" or an "insult"? If not, would you agree that Rush Limbaugh, the man from whom Smitty and others got this term, certainly uses it as an insult? Would you not be able to concur that calling someone names and then complaining about the favor being returned is hypocritical (although to be fair, I haven't seen Smitty complain)?
Finally, I don't disagree with you that he can post what he wants within the rules of the board. That is beside the point. You are also correct that no one will honor threads that are not compelling. In point of fact, I would submit that the majority of these cut and paste threads have no responses. And with the ones that do, it is usually a single comment of approval from you or LumRaiderFan.
At the end of the day, if that's what you guys want this board to be, okay. It just gets to the point where those looking for a real discussion no longer visit it or post. And I would argue that is exactly what has happened with some of better contributors to this board.

Nice try, but Smitty has been posting a while.

He isn't the reason the political forum is deteriorating.

Most is his posts get no response because there is no defense from the left, so they point the finger and call them whacky right-wing posts.

I am truly sorry our President is doing such a poor job, if you disagree with Smitty's posts, point out why.

[LumRaiderFan]

TxHoops, the rules apparently don't apply to them because they are right and anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid is wrong!
WE DUN KNEED NO KRITYKUL THINKENG ROWND THEZE PARTS OF TWN

Exhibit A for the deterioration of the political forum.

[stevenash]

I have my own thoughts regarding this but am not going to respond because I think the moderators want to see all of this come to an end.  Personally, I very much dislike being called stupid or having it inferred toward me because my formal education level is not comparable to that of someone else. ( even though the informal one is as good or better than most)  If we want to get real honest about things, even though I rarely use the aforementioned term, I do believe that there are a lots of individuals who cast ballots without much forethought .  While I am no better qualified than anyone else on most of the social issues, I knew those economic promises were pure garbage the minute they were uttered and that is what turned me against the candidate.  I believe I am entitled to make that judgement and to do so without being labeled as stupid.

[stevenash]

To those of you who truly want "real discussion" lets try it again.  But it will deteriorate the very minute the name calling and or feigned condescension begins.

[TxHoops]

Nice try, but Smitty has been posting a while.

He isn't the reason the political forum is deteriorating.

Most is his posts get no response because there is no defense from the left, so they point the finger and call them whacky right-wing posts.

I am truly sorry our President is doing such a poor job, if you disagree with Smitty's posts, point out why.

Exhibit B.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

Steve, you constantly call me a liberal and part of the "tolerant crowd" yet Ive repeatedly stated I'm fiscally conservative and support lower taxes, less regulations and the repeal of obamacare. I've also stated obama has been a disappointment, although I do not give him ALL the blame for the current economic environment.

If you don't like being grouped with the teabaggers, then why do you keep grouping me with liberals?

[TxHoops]

Steve, you constantly call me a liberal and part of the "tolerant crowd" yet Ive repeatedly stated I'm fiscally conservative and support lower taxes, less regulations and the repeal of obamacare. I've also stated obama has been a disappointment, although I do not give him ALL the blame for the current economic environment.

If you don't like being grouped with the teabaggers, then why do you keep grouping me with liberals?

In before Stevie responds to a question with another question...

[LumRaiderFan]

Exhibit B.

Exhibit C.

See what I mean...this nonsense only showed up recently.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

Exhibit D

Look how ridiculous this "discussion" is

http://setxsports.com/ip/index.php?/topic/106855-hide-the-democrat-scandals/

[stevenash]

I believe it was you who stated that you were a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  The liberal social crowd always laments the fact that only they are truly tolerant and promoting diversity.  If you want to go ahead, right here and now, and state you are NOT a social liberal, I will happily accept that statement and we can proceed accordingly.  It is worth noting, however, that on this board your full time job has been to criticize the left and defend the right.  I am not saying there is anything wrong with that but surely you understand what type of conclusions it makes observers arrive at.  One more thing, most of the name calling that take place on this board originates from those supportive of and sympathetic to the current administration.  You have not been deficient in meeting that criteria.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

No, he'll pull the "Cleo" card and claim he knows my true political leanings. He's apparently a psychic. He might be Jesus actually. The other extreme posters sure do follow him around like he is.

In before Stevie responds to a question with another question...