Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location

mojeaux131's Achievements




  1. And that's why some people like yours truly don't particularly have a problem with the presence of Keith Olbermann and his ilk. They provide balance in the media. Fight fire with fire. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business...amp;oref=slogin
  2. And...maybe...it would be a waste of money to destroy it...and build something different...but...it's so FUUUUGLY... Yeah, it ain't going anywhere. Whatevs. Also, if it spurs development on downtown's east side, that's good too. Yeah. Way to go, you ugly, ugly building. You do have a purpose. Bless your heart.
  3. I grow in wisdom as you grow in modesty. Edit: Ha ha, I totally didn't mean for this to start off the new page. Whoopsie.
  4. If I start to sound like that, let me know. I'll check myself. Compromise is key to success. No one has a monopoly on the truth. I think depending on the time and place, policies should be adjusted either more to the "left" or more to the "right". For now, I believe policy at the federal level should go more to the "left" while in a state like California they could afford to be more conservative at this point. And there can even be variations within different types of policy in a single place. For example, a place could become more fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time, Eisenhower Republican style. It's all about balance.
  5. Whoa, that is incongruous. You're right. I think this is the first time I've agreed with you. Nice.
  6. Taken to the level they have in New York, it's bad. Development doesn't have to follow one extreme or the other, you know.
  7. Those pictures are nice. Even a turd like like GRB will sparkle with enough glitter on it (that would be the park).
  8. Sorry, didn't mean for it to go that way. I prefer to stick to the issues and straight-up debate.
  9. Yes. Actually, in that regard, McCain's record is much more impressive than Obama's.
  10. I honestly don't know when providing veterans with benefits became about "feelings". We do it because it's the right thing to do. Period. And for police and firefighters, if they are injured in the line of duty, all their medical expenses should be covered. All of them. And "on economic principle", a Republican shouldn't mind at all. How is providing educational and medical benefits an "intrusion into the free market"? By that logic, anything the government spends money on is an intrusion into the free market. Republicans support government intervention into the supposedly "free" market all the time, usually to help out private companies. You mean hardwired, right? Ideology=Programming Okay, I'll stop now. Well, I'll try to.
  11. Ah, but your "feeling" seems to be that the work soldiers do is little different in effect from the work that Chinese factories do in providing us with cheap goods. And this is completely incorrect. Feelings (or the lack thereof, IMHO) like yours are in fact institutionalized and forced on others when a soldier loses an appendage in Iraq and can't get the proper benefits upon returning to the States, because of an uncooperative bureaucracy or policies that don't think losing an appendage is "enough" to warrant decent benefits. I am far from the only one who feels this way. And my original point was simply that it was ludicrous for the Republican candidate to oppose the 21st Century G.I. Bill. Feelings and empathy constitute a large part of human reason, anyhow.
  • Create New...