3 things we like or respect about our opposing numbers

[Roadrunner]

Why would school boards in red states be run by liberals?

"The Committee for Economic Growth and Social Justice, an innocuously named super PAC registered in Washington to accept and spend unlimited amounts of campaign cash to influence politics — in this case, who would win three unpaid positions on a board that runs a 25,000-student school district. […] 'We've never experienced or expected that outside interest groups would come in and invest this kind of money into a local school board race," said Elizabeth School Board president Tony Monteiro, a political ally of the losing candidates. "It boggles the mind. ... The whole landscape has changed.' […] In Elizabeth, Anthony Padlo, one of the two school board members ousted last year, said he expected a competitive race but was 'surprised that a super PAC has such an interest in a local school board."
USA TODAY7:33 p.m. EST February 25, 2014
Well, rightwinger that's yours to decide. The above quote may help you.

Tens of thousands of school boards around the country and you give me a sample of one

Oh, that's a drop in the bucket compared to what they spent overall.

NEA, AFT to Combine for $80 Million in Election Spending


NEA AFT to Combine for 80 Million in Election Spending

I think you'll find that not much of that money was spent on school board elections.

Money spent on school board elections is significantly less, even miniscule in comparison to higher elected offices, I agree. However, school board elections are also significantly less visible and less interest of the public especially when voters do not have school age children any longer.

School boards are elected by the very few that actually give a shit to vote in a local election.

Most places try to at least tie them to a statewide election.

 

[defcon4]

"The Committee for Economic Growth and Social Justice, an innocuously named super PAC registered in Washington to accept and spend unlimited amounts of campaign cash to influence politics — in this case, who would win three unpaid positions on a board that runs a 25,000-student school district. […] 'We've never experienced or expected that outside interest groups would come in and invest this kind of money into a local school board race," said Elizabeth School Board president Tony Monteiro, a political ally of the losing candidates. "It boggles the mind. ... The whole landscape has changed.' […] In Elizabeth, Anthony Padlo, one of the two school board members ousted last year, said he expected a competitive race but was 'surprised that a super PAC has such an interest in a local school board."
USA TODAY7:33 p.m. EST February 25, 2014
Well, rightwinger that's yours to decide. The above quote may help you.

Tens of thousands of school boards around the country and you give me a sample of one

Oh, that's a drop in the bucket compared to what they spent overall.

NEA, AFT to Combine for $80 Million in Election Spending


NEA AFT to Combine for 80 Million in Election Spending

I think you'll find that not much of that money was spent on school board elections.

Money spent on school board elections is significantly less, even miniscule in comparison to higher elected offices, I agree. However, school board elections are also significantly less visible and less interest of the public especially when voters do not have school age children any longer.

School boards are elected by the very few that actually give a shit to vote in a local election.

Most places try to at least tie them to a statewide election.

Exactly!

 

[Disir]

If you are a "liberal" or "progressive" or a "left winger" or some variation on that theme, then your "opposing number' would be conservatives or so-called "right wingers." And vice versa.

Like the old parlor game "gun to your head" the time has come to be bold and declarative. You cannot hate everything your opposing numbers stand for. Right? So, NAME the three things you most admire or respect or even share with your opposing numbers.

Like this:

I am a conservative. By conservative I do not mean 'social conservative' or some other adjective driven version of political conservatism. I mean a "conservative" in the sense that I believe we should adhere to the principles of a limited Constitutional Republic with allegiance to fiscal responsibility, the rule of law and an endorsement of the "civil society." Like that. As such, I generally disagree with the left wing side of the political spectrum. But, gun to my head, I can acknowledge some aspects of what we used to call "liberalism:"

1. The tendency of liberals to endorse the notion that we should become ever more determined to be as good as our Nation's historical promise. I reject the notion of "fundamental change," but kind of like changes that bring us closer to the old view of the promise of America.

2. I reject the notion that only liberals embrace principles of racial and sexual fairness, but I do admire their efforts to move us ever closer to the goal of being a fair and just society regardless of race or gender or gender identity.

3. I respect the modern American liberals' embrace of freedom of speech. I will not quibble too much on discussing when they fail to honor it themselves. The part I admire is the GENERAL notion that a free marketplace of ideas is a goal well worth trying to obtain.

Curious to see what others think. I was tempted to put this in a flame free zone, but the placement itself could lead to a derailment. So, I'm opting to put it in a more free-wheeling arena. I guess we'll see how that works out.

No.

I have zero respect for sweeping generalizations.

But, if I am conversing with someone that is conservative one on one or in a small group then I can give you twenty. No gun necessary.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don't think I have an opposite.

Is there anybody out there who supports supply side economics, little or no environmental regulation, hates gay people, defends Islamists, thinks women belong in the kitchen, wants to privatize education, is very doctrinaire in approach to politics and hates dogs?

If so, we need to talk. Please arrive on time so I can at least compliment you on your punctuality.

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh, my. A group of teachers are concerned about school board. Somehow that doesn't sound as nefarious as oil company magnates with a history of buying politicians poking their noses into it. Of course, I would expect the average teabagger to disagree.

We are not talking about a couple of teachers in a rural school house being concerned but a very powerful union whose members block vote nationwide and always for the candidates who will pay their "support" back in some form of "benefit" Let's not go there who is nefarious and who is not. Most recently I heard about Sheldon Silver. He abused public trust while the oil magnate "sits around oil wells" but it is OPEC who controls oil prices.

School board elections are not nationwide, so what is your point? What do oil prices have to do with school boards? I know right wingers have a lot of trouble staying on subject, but you should at least try.

You seem to be worked up over there. Take some chill pills. I would overnight some for you but I do not have any since I never use those things.
I replied to your response when you brought into the conversation a few concerned teachers and oil magnates. Just you would know how right winger I am I will quote you from Walter E. Williams, noted professor of economics, a few years back when George Mitchell was the Senate majority leader and Bob Dole was the minority leader. "George Mitchell and Bob Dole agree to take your money, they just disagree how to spend it." I agree with that statement. You probably never heard of independents since most of libs rely on marching orders from the party and goose step to the tune.

I realize it's fashionable for right wingers to claim to be independents, or conservatives, or even fluffy kitties, but when was the last time you voted for anyone other than a republican?

You are right in your assumption that I generally do not vote for democrats. I think the reason for that is that I don't want anything for nothing. I do not sell my vote. I usually vote against those who fabricate laws take somebody's possessions to give it to somebody else. It is unfortunate that there are very few candidates to vote FOR, so I vote my convictions or settle voting for the lesser evil thus still helping to erode unalienable rights because the lesser evil is still evil.

Right......Like I said. You're another republican who is too embarrassed or dishonest to admit it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I can give you twenty. .

Damn it, I sure love it when women do push ups!

 

[Disir]

lol

 

[defcon4]

We are not talking about a couple of teachers in a rural school house being concerned but a very powerful union whose members block vote nationwide and always for the candidates who will pay their "support" back in some form of "benefit" Let's not go there who is nefarious and who is not. Most recently I heard about Sheldon Silver. He abused public trust while the oil magnate "sits around oil wells" but it is OPEC who controls oil prices.

School board elections are not nationwide, so what is your point? What do oil prices have to do with school boards? I know right wingers have a lot of trouble staying on subject, but you should at least try.

You seem to be worked up over there. Take some chill pills. I would overnight some for you but I do not have any since I never use those things.
I replied to your response when you brought into the conversation a few concerned teachers and oil magnates. Just you would know how right winger I am I will quote you from Walter E. Williams, noted professor of economics, a few years back when George Mitchell was the Senate majority leader and Bob Dole was the minority leader. "George Mitchell and Bob Dole agree to take your money, they just disagree how to spend it." I agree with that statement. You probably never heard of independents since most of libs rely on marching orders from the party and goose step to the tune.

I realize it's fashionable for right wingers to claim to be independents, or conservatives, or even fluffy kitties, but when was the last time you voted for anyone other than a republican?

You are right in your assumption that I generally do not vote for democrats. I think the reason for that is that I don't want anything for nothing. I do not sell my vote. I usually vote against those who fabricate laws take somebody's possessions to give it to somebody else. It is unfortunate that there are very few candidates to vote FOR, so I vote my convictions or settle voting for the lesser evil thus still helping to erode unalienable rights because the lesser evil is still evil.

Right......Like I said. You're another republican who is too embarrassed or dishonest to admit it.

You know, I made the mistake to talk to you as one would to an open minded lib who respects the views of others without sinking into a level of accusations of being dishonest. Everybody is a reflection of his own soul. One is dishonest therefore one assumes - as a reflection of ones own soul - that everybody is dishonest.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If you are a "liberal" or "progressive" or a "left winger" or some variation on that theme, then your "opposing number' would be conservatives or so-called "right wingers." And vice versa.

Like the old parlor game "gun to your head" the time has come to be bold and declarative. You cannot hate everything your opposing numbers stand for. Right? So, NAME the three things you most admire or respect or even share with your opposing numbers.

Like this:

I am a conservative. By conservative I do not mean 'social conservative' or some other adjective driven version of political conservatism. I mean a "conservative" in the sense that I believe we should adhere to the principles of a limited Constitutional Republic with allegiance to fiscal responsibility, the rule of law and an endorsement of the "civil society." Like that. As such, I generally disagree with the left wing side of the political spectrum. But, gun to my head, I can acknowledge some aspects of what we used to call "liberalism:"

1. The tendency of liberals to endorse the notion that we should become ever more determined to be as good as our Nation's historical promise. I reject the notion of "fundamental change," but kind of like changes that bring us closer to the old view of the promise of America.

2. I reject the notion that only liberals embrace principles of racial and sexual fairness, but I do admire their efforts to move us ever closer to the goal of being a fair and just society regardless of race or gender or gender identity.

3. I respect the modern American liberals' embrace of freedom of speech. I will not quibble too much on discussing when they fail to honor it themselves. The part I admire is the GENERAL notion that a free marketplace of ideas is a goal well worth trying to obtain.

Curious to see what others think. I was tempted to put this in a flame free zone, but the placement itself could lead to a derailment. So, I'm opting to put it in a more free-wheeling arena. I guess we'll see how that works out.

What if you think of yourself as a moderate?

- I like how liberals and conservatives both think politicians are responsible for stuff and not their campaign donors who give them orders. It's cute in its' childlike naivete.

- I like how liberals and conservatives both think the other is responsible for bad stuff. If both sides think the other's responsible for bad things, both sides are then wrong.

- I like how liberals and conservatives think being on one side or extreme is better than being as close to a perfect middle as you can recognizing both have their pluses, but that both also have their minuses. So why not stay in the middle and draw the best from both but not stay so on either side you're suffering the negatives?

 

[BULLDOG]

School board elections are not nationwide, so what is your point? What do oil prices have to do with school boards? I know right wingers have a lot of trouble staying on subject, but you should at least try.

You seem to be worked up over there. Take some chill pills. I would overnight some for you but I do not have any since I never use those things.
I replied to your response when you brought into the conversation a few concerned teachers and oil magnates. Just you would know how right winger I am I will quote you from Walter E. Williams, noted professor of economics, a few years back when George Mitchell was the Senate majority leader and Bob Dole was the minority leader. "George Mitchell and Bob Dole agree to take your money, they just disagree how to spend it." I agree with that statement. You probably never heard of independents since most of libs rely on marching orders from the party and goose step to the tune.

I realize it's fashionable for right wingers to claim to be independents, or conservatives, or even fluffy kitties, but when was the last time you voted for anyone other than a republican?

You are right in your assumption that I generally do not vote for democrats. I think the reason for that is that I don't want anything for nothing. I do not sell my vote. I usually vote against those who fabricate laws take somebody's possessions to give it to somebody else. It is unfortunate that there are very few candidates to vote FOR, so I vote my convictions or settle voting for the lesser evil thus still helping to erode unalienable rights because the lesser evil is still evil.

Right......Like I said. You're another republican who is too embarrassed or dishonest to admit it.

You know, I made the mistake to talk to you as one would to an open minded lib who respects the views of others without sinking into a level of accusations of being dishonest. Everybody is a reflection of his own soul. One is dishonest therefore one assumes - as a reflection of ones own soul - that everybody is dishonest.

Oh wow.....What a crock. You vote Republican, but claim you aren't a republican. That's the definition of a lie. Inferring that I am dishonest because I call out your dishonesty is a typical GOP tactic. I am open minded, but after reading your previous posts, I chose to not to be so open minded till my brain falls out. That would make me a republican.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have to admire the complete lack of ethics by the left.
When it comes to being sociopaths, the left has it down to an art
Demagoguery is a talent the left exceeds at.

There, there are three,

When they have no valid argument they engage in name calling and intimidation to shut people up.

Covered under "demagoguery!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. If you don't talk about politics, some of them are actually fun and funny

2. They have a devotion to cause that would make a Kamikaze flinch

3. Some of their women have made uninvited sexually aggressive advances toward me and I kind of liked it. (OK, I made that one up)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If you are a "liberal" or "progressive" or a "left winger" or some variation on that theme, then your "opposing number' would be conservatives or so-called "right wingers." And vice versa.

Like the old parlor game "gun to your head" the time has come to be bold and declarative. You cannot hate everything your opposing numbers stand for. Right? So, NAME the three things you most admire or respect or even share with your opposing numbers.

Like this:

I am a conservative. By conservative I do not mean 'social conservative' or some other adjective driven version of political conservatism. I mean a "conservative" in the sense that I believe we should adhere to the principles of a limited Constitutional Republic with allegiance to fiscal responsibility, the rule of law and an endorsement of the "civil society." Like that. As such, I generally disagree with the left wing side of the political spectrum. But, gun to my head, I can acknowledge some aspects of what we used to call "liberalism:"

1. The tendency of liberals to endorse the notion that we should become ever more determined to be as good as our Nation's historical promise. I reject the notion of "fundamental change," but kind of like changes that bring us closer to the old view of the promise of America.

2. I reject the notion that only liberals embrace principles of racial and sexual fairness, but I do admire their efforts to move us ever closer to the goal of being a fair and just society regardless of race or gender or gender identity.

3. I respect the modern American liberals' embrace of freedom of speech. I will not quibble too much on discussing when they fail to honor it themselves. The part I admire is the GENERAL notion that a free marketplace of ideas is a goal well worth trying to obtain.

Curious to see what others think. I was tempted to put this in a flame free zone, but the placement itself could lead to a derailment. So, I'm opting to put it in a more free-wheeling arena. I guess we'll see how that works out.

What if you think of yourself as a moderate?

- I like how liberals and conservatives both think politicians are responsible for stuff and not their campaign donors who give them orders. It's cute in its' childlike naivete.

- I like how liberals and conservatives both think the other is responsible for bad stuff. If both sides think the other's responsible for bad things, both sides are then wrong.

- I like how liberals and conservatives think being on one side or extreme is better than being as close to a perfect middle as you can recognizing both have their pluses, but that both also have their minuses. So why not stay in the middle and draw the best from both but not stay so on either side you're suffering the negatives?

Yeah. I enjoy how so-called "moderates" fancy themselves as being both above the fray and too clever by half. It's especially cute when they engage is overly broad hyper generalizations about folks with differing political philosophies. Meanwhile, they are largely incapable of being decisive but confuse that with "open-mindedness."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is difficult about finding common ground today, is the nation is so terribly polarized. Few people, on both sides, are thinking very clear at all. Too busy repeating rhetorical garbage and mud slinging to stop and have a clear thought.
So concerning Washington politics it is basically impossible for me to find common ground with the majority of the left. They will not give up an inch of perceived ground - scared to death to give a conservative a one up.
I have said many times, and I am being completely honest and objective - ANYONE who believes this President is a good one either has no clue about reality, or is being dishonest and is more interested in scoring points and arguing than rational thinking.
Period.

 

[BULLDOG]

What is difficult about finding common ground today, is the nation is so terribly polarized. Few people, on both sides, are thinking very clear at all. Too busy repeating rhetorical garbage and mud slinging to stop and have a clear thought.
So concerning Washington politics it is basically impossible for me to find common ground with the majority of the left. They will not give up an inch of perceived ground - scared to death to give a conservative a one up.
I have said many times, and I am being completely honest and objective - ANYONE who believes this President is a good one either has no clue about reality, or is being dishonest and is more interested in scoring points and arguing than rational thinking.
Period.

So you whine about common ground and then say that anyone who believes this president is good is either lying or disconnected from reality. Now, that's the fair and balanced thinking we have grown to expect from fox drones. Idiot.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is difficult about finding common ground today, is the nation is so terribly polarized. Few people, on both sides, are thinking very clear at all. Too busy repeating rhetorical garbage and mud slinging to stop and have a clear thought.
So concerning Washington politics it is basically impossible for me to find common ground with the majority of the left. They will not give up an inch of perceived ground - scared to death to give a conservative a one up.
I have said many times, and I am being completely honest and objective - ANYONE who believes this President is a good one either has no clue about reality, or is being dishonest and is more interested in scoring points and arguing than rational thinking.
Period.

So you whine about common ground and then say that anyone who believes this president is good is either lying or disconnected from reality. Now, that's the fair and balanced thinking we have grown to expect from fox drones. Idiot.

No that is your inability to recognize an honest and accurate thought.
Except for the top 7% wage earners in America, all of America on average is still making less than they did 7 years ago. That is a fact. The only people, generally speaking among the population as a whole, who have benefited from the past seven years of growth is ONLY the elite wealthy. That is a fact. There is no disputing that.
We have the largest percentage of welfare recipients in 40 years. That is a fact. There is no disputing that.
On every single category, minorities in America are doing worse now since he took office, That is a fact. There is no disputing that.
The part-time job ratio to full-time is still critically high. The government began tracking this ratio in 1968. It has never been worse than it has been since 2009. That is a fact. There is no disputing that.
I can go on for pages.
President Obama is not a good President. Period. And neither was Bush. Period.
Economically speaking, they are almost identical. Both primarily have doe whatever the central banks want them to to do. As far as Wall Street and super-corporations are concerned - Obama is a GREAT President.

 

[Roadrunner]

"The Committee for Economic Growth and Social Justice, an innocuously named super PAC registered in Washington to accept and spend unlimited amounts of campaign cash to influence politics — in this case, who would win three unpaid positions on a board that runs a 25,000-student school district. […] 'We've never experienced or expected that outside interest groups would come in and invest this kind of money into a local school board race," said Elizabeth School Board president Tony Monteiro, a political ally of the losing candidates. "It boggles the mind. ... The whole landscape has changed.' […] In Elizabeth, Anthony Padlo, one of the two school board members ousted last year, said he expected a competitive race but was 'surprised that a super PAC has such an interest in a local school board."
USA TODAY7:33 p.m. EST February 25, 2014
Well, rightwinger that's yours to decide. The above quote may help you.

Of course right wingers would never do that ........right?
Americans for Prosperity — the conservative group funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch — is getting involved with the Kenosha Unified School Board race.

David Fladeboe, state director of Americans for Prosperity, said the organization has a field team working on the race, doing phone banks and canvassing in the district.

“We’re getting a feel for what the people in Kenosha are thinking and doing,” Fladeboe said. “Right now we’re doing phone surveys to figure out where people are on a number of issues.”

Four candidates are running for two seats on the School Board. Incumbent Jo Ann Taube hopes to return to the board. Also running are Mike Falkofske, Gary Kunich and Dan Wade.

Fladeboe said Americans for Prosperity is not specifically supporting any candidate. But he said the group decided to become involved in the race due to the board’s approval of new union contracts.

Taube voted to approve the contracts and is endorsed by the Kenosha Education Association, as is Falkofske. Kunich and Wade have been vocal in their opposition to the contracts.

“We’ll have a team working to get out the vote,” Fladeboe said.
http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/ame...osha_unified_school_board_race_476239373.html

We could go on and on with quotes. However, these articles prove my point. There is a contest to win back school boards and actually start educating youngsters again. It is not easy as the liberal establishment is well entrenched.
"The American Federation of Teachers has spent almost $450,000 on the Jefferson Parish School Board elections, recent campaign finance reports show. That's more than all individual candidate contributions combined."
"National teachers union chief calls Jefferson Parish School Board results win for public schools, students. Teachers union candidates win Jefferson Parish School Board majority.
The Times-Picayune October 28, 2014

Oh, my. A group of teachers are concerned about school board. Somehow that doesn't sound as nefarious as oil company magnates with a history of buying politicians poking their noses into it. Of course, I would expect the average teabagger to disagree.

We are not talking about a couple of teachers in a rural school house being concerned but a very powerful union whose members block vote nationwide and always for the candidates who will pay their "support" back in some form of "benefit" Let's not go there who is nefarious and who is not. Most recently I heard about Sheldon Silver. He abused public trust while the oil magnate "sits around oil wells" but it is OPEC who controls oil prices.

School board elections are not nationwide, so what is your point? What do oil prices have to do with school boards? I know right wingers have a lot of trouble staying on subject, but you should at least try.

Price of oil has a lot to do with school boards if 16th Section lands are in production.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm very much a liberal,

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Actually, if I recall my earlier research correctly, there are around 13,500 school districts in the USA.

And 13,359 of them are in NJ!

 

[defcon4]

You seem to be worked up over there. Take some chill pills. I would overnight some for you but I do not have any since I never use those things.
I replied to your response when you brought into the conversation a few concerned teachers and oil magnates. Just you would know how right winger I am I will quote you from Walter E. Williams, noted professor of economics, a few years back when George Mitchell was the Senate majority leader and Bob Dole was the minority leader. "George Mitchell and Bob Dole agree to take your money, they just disagree how to spend it." I agree with that statement. You probably never heard of independents since most of libs rely on marching orders from the party and goose step to the tune.

I realize it's fashionable for right wingers to claim to be independents, or conservatives, or even fluffy kitties, but when was the last time you voted for anyone other than a republican?

You are right in your assumption that I generally do not vote for democrats. I think the reason for that is that I don't want anything for nothing. I do not sell my vote. I usually vote against those who fabricate laws take somebody's possessions to give it to somebody else. It is unfortunate that there are very few candidates to vote FOR, so I vote my convictions or settle voting for the lesser evil thus still helping to erode unalienable rights because the lesser evil is still evil.

Right......Like I said. You're another republican who is too embarrassed or dishonest to admit it.

You know, I made the mistake to talk to you as one would to an open minded lib who respects the views of others without sinking into a level of accusations of being dishonest. Everybody is a reflection of his own soul. One is dishonest therefore one assumes - as a reflection of ones own soul - that everybody is dishonest.

Oh wow.....What a crock. You vote Republican, but claim you aren't a republican. That's the definition of a lie. Inferring that I am dishonest because I call out your dishonesty is a typical GOP tactic. I am open minded, but after reading your previous posts, I chose to not to be so open minded till my brain falls out. That would make me a republican.

You need to read more carefully. Maybe you did but unable to comprehend what I sincerely doubt. You are just a spin doctor on the Administration's payroll. How does it feel to get paid from taxpayers' money having fun with mud slinging all day?