Jim Morin for March 29, 2011

And you know it’s the libs HOW, vortex? Go something to back that up?

And I thought mayor Bloomberg was a Republican.

It’s the repubs who won’t even let a community center be built 2 blocks away.

T’ain’t the way I heered it, son. .

http://tinyurl.com/dgw8kx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewYorkCitymayoralelection,2009#RepublicanParty

See, even you guys can’t work together no wonder things never get done. Too many egos practicing their scales: me, me, me, ME, ME!

Respect to Jim for this one.

Seems unfair not to include the poor Russians who gave their lives to avoid destroying Europe.

Didn’t you click on the links I posted vortex? Guy ran as a Repub the first two times and with the endorsement of the Republican party the third time.

And now are you going to do the same and provide backup for your claim?

^ I think the issue is that you have confused the idea that political party equates to ideology. It doesn’t, though there typically are certain characteristics and tendencies that, generally, are congruent.

An individual can be a member of any party yet have a core ideology that is quite different than the core of the members of that party. Hence, why the term RHINO was developed.

Example, a person calls himself a Catholic. Why? Because his parents are Catholics. Now that person doesn’t go to services or confession, doesn’t receive the sacraments, doesn’t read the bible or even really care about the concepts of sin and a savior… but he believes the general premise that there is a God. Thus, he calls himself a Catholic and even a Christian even though he isn’t by definition by not truly believing the “essentials” of that faith… let alone being active.

Now let’s say that person resides in a community that is heavily dominated by Atheists. He’s certainly not the norm on that one issue as he has sympathies for the religious believers elsewhere, but it’s not a major concern for him. But on everything else he’s just like the rest of the community.

However, a group which is normally unpopular in that Atheist dominated community is looking for a person that can “win” and do so under their banner. All they want is a little favor on the one issue of providing a little more respect for the minority religious community (in the hopes that more visibility and credibility would be a catalyst to spreading their faith).

Thus, they get this person who otherwise is quite well regarded in the community and is on par with the vast majority of the local’s ideology and he wins. Hence, you get a Snow, the guy from Mass, Swartzy in Cali, most NY reps, etc. What you get is someone who will toe the line for a few bits here and there…. which happens to be more than what they would normally get.

Or to put it simply… what’s better for the Reps, having a liberal leaning moderate that will back a few Rep ideas and can win or lose to hardcore leftists who will never side with a Rep idea? You play to win and accept the penalties as they are.

This is why I had a question last week regarding defining ideology and what makes up the left and right and why… where does it come from and what does it lead to. Understand that and every else is easy.

While Bloomberg is a Rep, he is a progressive and far more moderate (and that’s fine I guess for NY). He’s certainly not on equal stances as say a Jim DeMint. But the reality is not every person from the same political party will see the same way on every issue either. Just saying.

Fine, so he’s a moderate Republican. ( Did I say he was a neo-con or a tea-bag Republican, btw? )

But he’s still a Republican, or at least he’s backed by the Republicans

And speaking of backing…I’m still waiting for some backup to the claim that it’s, ‘the lib’s fault’, the WTC hasn’t been rebuilt as of yet.

^ yea… I think that was a pretty foolish statement myself, to be fair Simon. So I agree with you there. I really don’t see how you could blame a political party or ideology for the WC unless a certain group is required to be interactive with the program and are absent from their post, especially purposefully (or worse, sabotaging).

I’d be surprised to see that evidence myself. After all, this is a massive undertaking in a cash strapped, near bankrupt state erecting an expensive building with… how much private investment exactly? compared to federal/state.

Look, New Orleans and other areas hit by Katrina still have massive ruins. Though those are near whole cities and not a single massive building in one of the most populous cities.

Maybe the next green tech development project should be work on a magic wand? They could run the project out of Las Vegas. I’m afraid, though, in the end all the results would just be an illusion.

-ugh… I hurt my own self with that joke.

What I see is a tribute to two sets of heroes who must be given highest honors. I’ll save my partisan bickering for later.

I agree with Dave, there were a number of “heros” at Chernobyl. WE also have heros who do dangerous jobs, EVERY DAY– yet all they get is contempt and blame because, well, we have to pay taxes to pay THEM to do those dangerous jobs— EVERY DAY!!

Vortex, you and I agree most times and share a similar ideology. But I actually think Simon’s core point is accurate and fair. Can you prove that liberal ideology has directly and/or purposefully stifled the construction of the new WC beyond how it would normally be constructed?

I agree with your general prognosis for the cause of increasing debt, decreasing freedoms, etc. But that doesn’t always directly effect a project like this. It’s not like other liberal dominated states don’t find a way even if that means more debt spending and reliance on federal funds. After all, this is the WC building. That garners a lot of meaning and attention. It will get done even if it’s the last thing that can be afforded to be built.

And Radish… I sure hope you’re playing the sarcasm game again and don’t actually believe that nonsense. Seriously, think a second time about what you said and exactly what that means (the progression of logic). You may find that that is one heinous and disgusting charge, as well as unfounded.

People play a lot of political word games and basically charge or say the same thing about this one as the other says to/about that one. But there are limitations. I would be ashamed if any conservative said that about libs.

I know you’re just trying to gain a political point… put have a little grasp of reality.

Now you might believe that conservative ideals are not your taste and not wise for the construction and maintaining of a functional, leading government. But gross wanton destruction over nuke plants? Really? Dog, that’s even a stretch for Clark Kent.

Btw, when was the last nuke plant built in the states and when was the last one built on a fault line? Then we can discuss which political party (if not both or neither) fought for that knowingly.

Please, reality first, emotional rhetoric second.

I agree with this cartoon, and I would like to see a third panel showing everyday heroes: public school teachers.

”^ I think the issue is that you have confused the idea that political party equates to ideology. It doesn’t, though there typically are certain characteristics and tendencies that, generally, are congruent.”

So you agree that Obama isn’t a Liberal/Socialist simply because he’s a Democrat?