Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7211)

Bloggingheads 12-06-2011 01:01 AM

World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 

Unit 12-06-2011 01:15 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Mark is right on, here, and Dan embarrasses himself by calling Gary Johnson a RINO of all things......

badhatharry 12-06-2011 09:04 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
I think this whole "end of bloggingheads as we know it" thing was a very cruel joke.

badhatharry 12-06-2011 10:02 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Looking for a silver lining here...at least the right, if we beat Obama, won't have to suffer from any disillusionment as the Obama crowd did. We are fully aware that all of our candidates are deeply flawed.

stephanie 12-06-2011 10:57 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 233598)
Mark is right on, here, and Dan embarrasses himself by calling Gary Johnson a RINO of all things......

I agree. I'd like the Republicans a lot more if they'd embrace people like Johnson.

miceelf 12-06-2011 11:34 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233619)
Looking for a silver lining here...at least the right, if we beat Obama, won't have to suffer from any disillusionment as the Obama crowd did. We are fully aware that all of our candidates are deeply flawed.

You're forgetting that the "Obama crowd" comprised only a portion of the dems. Most of the Clinton supporters were well aware that Obama had flaws. Indeed, a lot of people who supported Obama were also aware of his flaws. (I am NOT claiming you can't dig up something silly some Obama supporter somewhere said, but I can find equally silly things said by supporters of ANY of the GOP candidates, from Bachmann to (blurg) Santorum. The GOP as a whole may be aware that their candidates are flawed, but each of them has a set of hardcore supporters who don't see such flaws.

badhatharry 12-06-2011 04:08 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233643)
You're forgetting that the "Obama crowd" comprised only a portion of the dems. Most of the Clinton supporters were well aware that Obama had flaws. Indeed, a lot of people who supported Obama were also aware of his flaws. (I am NOT claiming you can't dig up something silly some Obama supporter somewhere said, but I can find equally silly things said by supporters of ANY of the GOP candidates, from Bachmann to (blurg) Santorum. The GOP as a whole may be aware that their candidates are flawed, but each of them has a set of hardcore supporters who don't see such flaws.

In fairness, please admit that I didn't say that the Obama crowd comprised all of the dems...

And I am quite sure that there are many hardcore supporters of each Republican candidate.

HOWEVER! I have heard many Obama supporters on this site and MSNBC gnashing their teeth when it was revealed that Obama was not the one they'd been waiting for. Glenn Loury and the guy from Berkeley that he used to appear with come to mind.

miceelf 12-06-2011 04:28 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233689)
In fairness, please admit that I didn't say that the Obama crowd comprised all of the dems....


Sure, and it was unclear what you meant. I just wanted to be clear that the portion of the people who were adulatory rather than clear eyed about Obama was a relatively small portion of the people who voted for him, and I'd be surprised if it's any bigger than the proportion of starry eyed devotees who vote for Bachmann or Santorum or Santelli or whoever.


Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233689)
HOWEVER! I have heard many Obama supporters on this site and MSNBC gnashing their teeth when it was revealed that Obama was not the one they'd been waiting for. Glenn Loury and the guy from Berkeley that he used to appear with come to mind.

Glenn Loury? The Glenn Loury who supported Clinton from day one and was critical of Obama consistently and only reluctantly voted for him and kept on complaining about others being starry eyed about Obama? That Glenn Loury?

I have no doubt that Glenn may have said something about being disappointed about Obama, but this isn't because of his expectations about him, as a review of his discussions before and during the elections will reveal. Rather, Glenn was always going to be disappointed about Obama and knew it.

As I said, I am sure you can find examples of what you are talking about. But Loury ain't it, I think.

Sulla the Dictator 12-06-2011 04:49 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233643)
You're forgetting that the "Obama crowd" comprised only a portion of the dems.

Meaning, the majority of Democratic primary voters.

Quote:

Most of the Clinton supporters were well aware that Obama had flaws. Indeed, a lot of people who supported Obama were also aware of his flaws. (I am NOT claiming you can't dig up something silly some Obama supporter somewhere said, but I can find equally silly things said by supporters of ANY of the GOP candidates, from Bachmann to (blurg) Santorum. The GOP as a whole may be aware that their candidates are flawed, but each of them has a set of hardcore supporters who don't see such flaws.
I'm sorry, but this is rewriting history. In light of Obama's obvious limitations, I can understand how supporters would prefer to erase the embarrassing 2008 (And 2009) stuff from the history books. But the reason I, and many others will not forget, is that we saw in the synergy between politics, money, and media adulation the great lie that is the American elite.

So lets play a game. Show me one image by a Bachmann, Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich supporter to rival these two:

http://celebrity-photos.elliottback....a-painting.jpg

http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-conte...s_Christ_1.jpg

Oh, and I could theoretically do this for a thousand years. I will never forget the cult of personality around Barack Obama. It reminded me that history is very much alive, and even my Republic is not beyond the forces which have plagued democracy since its inception.

miceelf 12-06-2011 04:54 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233696)
I'm sorry, but this is rewriting history. In light of Obama's obvious limitations, I can understand how supporters would prefer to erase the embarrassing 2008 (And 2009) stuff from the history books.


I explicitly stated that one could find examples of silliness from some people who supported Obama. The fact that you can find something I said you could find doesn't prove anything about what I was actually saying, which is the proportion of people who voted for Obama who had crazy ideas about him. You have provided 2 examples.

Whether the idiots who come up to Michelle Bachmann (and, before her, Sarah Palin) and declare that God has ordained that she, like Ruth, will be the savior of her people- whether those record their sillinesses in oils or watercolors is immaterial to their degree of silliness. What you may possibly have demonstrated is that among people who produce mediocre art, one can find more examples of Obama supporters than of Bachmann supporters. (water) color me unimpressed.

stephanie 12-06-2011 05:11 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233693)
Glenn Loury? The Glenn Loury who supported Clinton from day one and was critical of Obama consistently and only reluctantly voted for him and kept on complaining about others being starry eyed about Obama? That Glenn Loury?

Heh. My reaction exactly.

I don't know what posters on this site are supposed to have had stars in their eyes about Obama, either.

miceelf 12-06-2011 05:30 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233699)
I don't know what posters on this site are supposed to have had stars in their eyes about Obama, either.

Didn't you know? I am an amateur artist in my spare time.

stephanie 12-06-2011 05:38 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233701)
Didn't you know? I am an amateur artist in my spare time.

Oh, we are in the presence of greatness. I love your Obama and the unicorns series. Especially the ones with the kittens.

Don Zeko 12-06-2011 05:43 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233702)
Oh, we are in the presence of greatness. I love your Obama and the unicorns series. Especially the ones with the kittens.

Keep it down guys. If Glenn Loury hears about this he'll wonder where the pony Obama promised him is.

AemJeff 12-06-2011 06:06 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 233703)
Keep it down guys. If Glenn Loury hears about this he'll wonder where the pony Obama promised him is.

Still growing its horn.

apple 12-06-2011 06:25 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Daniel repeats the absurd claim that Huntsman has been 'in your face' to the "99%" of Republican primary voters (more like the 66% of idiots). Where's the evidence for that? I've seen chiwifox make a similar claim, and he could also not substantiate it.

Sulla the Dictator 12-06-2011 06:34 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233698)
I explicitly stated that one could find examples of silliness from some people who supported Obama. The fact that you can find something I said you could find doesn't prove anything about what I was actually saying, which is the proportion of people who voted for Obama who had crazy ideas about him. You have provided 2 examples.

Except that you implied it was equal.

but I can find equally silly things said by supporters of ANY of the GOP candidates, from Bachmann to (blurg) Santorum.

It isn't equal.

Quote:

Whether the idiots who come up to Michelle Bachmann (and, before her, Sarah Palin) and declare that God has ordained that she, like Ruth, will be the savior of her people
Is that an anecdotal story? Here's the problem; I didn't touch things that people said about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlmsa0Jt7ao

That's a journalist, talking with a prominent left wing talking head, not some person on the street. People on the street said crazier things than that.

What I posted were works of devotion by admirers for the President. Hours of labor, done earnestly to express their adoration to this person. No, that doesn't happen in our party. There is no cult of personality around Michelle Bachmann, I can assure you.

Quote:

- whether those record their sillinesses in oils or watercolors is immaterial to their degree of silliness.
I said I could do this for a thousand years. You haven't shown an ability to do it once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h6hh7F357Y

Anyone who isn't uncomfortable with that link.....

Quote:

What you may possibly have demonstrated is that among people who produce mediocre art, one can find more examples of Obama supporters than of Bachmann supporters. (water) color me unimpressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roUTdnL0ZSI

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 06:41 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233699)
Heh. My reaction exactly.

I don't know what posters on this site are supposed to have had stars in their eyes about Obama, either.

Yeah, this is at least the 2nd time badhat has been corrected after making the fact-free claim that Loury was some starry-eyed Obamabot who was later disillusioned. Loury could barely conceal -- and often didn't -- his contempt for Obama from long before the election in 2008, and often visibly struggled on camera to avoid saying even more impolitic things.

I think a lot of the protofascists are confusing the enormous relief we experienced at the end of the Bush Nightmare with some kind of unrealistic optimism about what Obama could accomplish.

What I said after the election was this: If Obama accomplishes nothing during the next four years, it will be a massive improvement over the continuation of the Bush Administration -- or a McCain/Palin Administration. Anything he accomplishes on top of that is just gravy.

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 06:45 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233721)
I said I could do this for a thousand years. You haven't shown an ability to do it once.

Yeah, because no one cares to play your stupid game.

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 06:49 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233721)

About this video, I will admit that the reaction to it among wingnuts, conservatives, lunatics, Republcians, psychopaths, tea party types, and other deranged sorts was deeply amusing in the days after Obama's election. Some poor school full of proud teachers and students trying to motivate their students after the election of the first black president was greeted -- I'm serious -- with genuine terror in certain conservative quarters.

You've claimed to have been involved in teabaggery following the election, so you know as well as I do that among the baggers was a prominent strain that believed Obama was going to impose martial law, establish his own private army, train a "Hitler Youth," and make himself dictator. And that video of those poor school kids was one of the leading exhibits in your case.

Very pathetic, and funny, too.

Sulla the Dictator 12-06-2011 06:54 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233725)
About this video, I will admit that the reaction to it among wingnuts, conservatives, lunatics, Republcians, psychopaths, tea party types, and other deranged sorts was deeply amusing in the days after Obama's election. Some poor school full of proud teachers and students trying to motivate their students after the election of the first black president was greeted -- I'm serious -- with genuine terror in certain conservative quarters.

You're a little fanatic, aren't you? Only a fanatic would have a problem seeing why people would object to such an overt politicization of school children. You're probably deeply proud of that video, and wish that it was common for schools to do that...with Democratic Presidents, of course.

True?

Sulla the Dictator 12-06-2011 06:55 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233723)
Yeah, because no one cares to play your stupid game.

Is Obama the greatest President ever? Or just one of the top three?

miceelf 12-06-2011 07:22 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233721)
Is that an anecdotal story? Here's the problem; I didn't touch things that people said about Obama.



That's too bad, because my claims were about the things people say, not about art, however kitschy or well-done.


I realize that I have earlier admitted to not being an expert on our forum system, but I feel like if I had made a claim about artistic representations I'd remember.

And, also, you again are pretending that I claimed that no one said silly things about Obama.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...ed_king_david/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=373317

Sulla the Dictator 12-06-2011 07:43 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233736)
That's too bad, because my claims were about the things people say, not about art, however kitschy or well-done.


I realize that I have earlier admitted to not being an expert on our forum system, but I feel like if I had made a claim about artistic representations I'd remember.

Actually I thought the point was "expression", artistic or vocal. You didn't make it very clear. In any case, I provided you with some vocal absurdities at your request.

Quote:

And, also, you again are pretending that I claimed that no one said silly things about Obama.
Again, my point is that you suggested equality. It isn't equal. Neither in volume or grandiosity.

Inside baseball fanatics don't really count. There were people who thought Carter and Hoover walked on water: they usually worked for them. I think you will admit that Obama had a much more significant cult.

I'm trying to find out what is so objectionable about this. "Pray for Michelle"? So? He seems to correctly assume Michelle Bachmann winning the primary would be miraculous.

I didn't link to anyone praying that Obama would win. I linked to one guy who said he was God (A significant media personality, BTW). One lady saying he was going to solve all her problems, and a group of young men chanting in militaristic fashion about the glory of Obama.

Now, I have a great deal more. Hollywood made songs out of his speeches, and got his supporters to sing them. How grandiose is that? Surely you must admit that this whole thing went too far. And that it isn't equatable to any GOP Presidential candidate running this year.

miceelf 12-06-2011 09:42 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233740)
Actually I thought the point was "expression", artistic or vocal. You didn't make it very clear. In any case, I provided you with some vocal absurdities at your request..

I didnt request examples. I specifically acknowledged that one could find examples of nuttiness about Obama.

badhatharry 12-06-2011 10:07 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233693)
Sure, and it was unclear what you meant. I just wanted to be clear that the portion of the people who were adulatory rather than clear eyed about Obama was a relatively small portion of the people who voted for him, and I'd be surprised if it's any bigger than the proportion of starry eyed devotees who vote for Bachmann or Santorum or Santelli or whoever.

OMG! is Santelli running?

Maybe it was the thing about him being the first black president that made it seem like people were going gaga! You surely know that Grant Park election night thing wasn't normal any way you slice it. I also think he encouraged the perception.


Quote:

As I said, I am sure you can find examples of what you are talking about. But Loury ain't it, I think
yeah, you're right.

badhatharry 12-06-2011 10:13 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233749)
I didnt request examples. I specifically acknowledged that one could find examples of nuttiness about Obama.

So it is your opinion that the nuttiness about Obama is about equal to the nuttiness about Michelle Bachmann or Ron Paul (notice I didn't say Mitt Romney). I wonder if there is any way to prove this one way or the other. I guess first you have to define nuttiness.

Maybe those guys from Yale are free.

miceelf 12-06-2011 10:53 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233754)
So it is your opinion that the nuttiness about Obama is about equal to the nuttiness about Michelle Bachmann or Ron Paul (notice I didn't say Mitt Romney).

Actually I started by simply saying that every candidate has people who support them who are also nuts.

But I went on to predict that the nominee would get a similar proportion of nutty supporters as Obama had.

Agree that this will not apply to Romney. I doubt he inspire passion, sane or otherwise, in anyone.

badhatharry 12-06-2011 11:27 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233759)
But I went on to predict that the nominee would get a similar proportion of nutty supporters as Obama had.

See this is where I don't agree, but again can't prove it. I think there was some kind of magical thinking about Obama and I cannot agree with the notion that anyone could ever have that kind of magical thinking about this crop of Republicans.

I think there is a wish in people that one day we will get the person we have been waiting for. People like me are way too cynical to hope that for more than a mili-second but I do think there are people who are really waiting for the Messiah.

For instance, who would ever think that it was cool to cart the body of Ronald Reagan across the country twice so that people could stand in line and pay homage to a shiny casket? And yet it happened. People want to believe there is such a thing as greatness and some people inspire that kind of hope in people.

Sulla the Dictator 12-07-2011 12:19 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233759)
Actually I started by simply saying that every candidate has people who support them who are also nuts.

No one denies that. What got me to interject was the suggestion of a parallel.

Quote:

But I went on to predict that the nominee would get a similar proportion of nutty supporters as Obama had.
I predict not. Not just because the extremism of Obama supporters is historically unparalleled (It was), but also because Republicans really don't do that. The only thing that even comes close, in my mind, was the Goldwater stuff. Republicans lionize Reagan now, sure. But it was a matter of politics when he was actually running.

Other than that, no. There were no cults of Nixon, or GW Bush, or GHW Bush, or Ford, or Eisenhower, or Hoover, or Coolidge, or Harding, or Taft. Goldwater had a pretty hard core following, mostly because he was the first Conservative to run for the Presidency in about forty years. Due to the reserved nature of the age, it had nothing of the Obama cult flavor about it.

Democrats, on the other hand, do have a habit of this "Savior" business. Obama, obviously, I think even you found those videos awkward to watch. But the Kennedy's are another example of this over-emotional political impulse. Bobby Kennedy in particular was deserving of none of the Christ-like status he was being given; he was, in point of fact, a bit of a prick.

Also Roosevelt. AKA, "President-for-life".

chiwhisoxx 12-07-2011 02:17 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
all I can think of watching this: this is what i'm going to miss.

miceelf 12-07-2011 08:26 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233762)
See this is where I don't agree, but again can't prove it. I think there was some kind of magical thinking about Obama and I cannot agree with the notion that anyone could ever have that kind of magical thinking about this crop of Republicans..

We agree about Romney.

There was a lot of magical thinking about Sarah Palin in the last election, and I have no reason to believe that the people who were comparing her to biblical figures aren't going to get all ginned up about whoever the nominee is.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 10:52 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233767)
Bobby Kennedy in particular was deserving of none of the Christ-like status he was being given; he was, in point of fact, a bit of a prick.

I think the reverence for Reagan comes pretty close. The coast to coast funeral extravaganza being a good example.

But none of this is about the actual man. It's a reflection of the times when they served. All the cultural change that happened in the 60's...and the three assasinations. It was movie making fodder. The break-up of the Soviet Union in Reagan's term... Americans like to get emotional and make things monumental and earth shattering.

I suppose 9/11 should have produced an iconic president but that wasn't to be the case. However, his successor was thought to have the potential to be one. Maybe in this day and age with 24/7 examination of every move a candidate or president makes that is no longer a possibility.

This time around the Republican candidates are just plain human with lots of warts. We forget that there's a whole lot more to the presidency than the president. If the president is Republican...will he have the House and the Senate?

PS. If Gingrich says 'fundamental' one more time, I'm going to scream.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 11:00 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233785)
We agree about Romney.

There was a lot of magical thinking about Sarah Palin in the last election, and I have no reason to believe that the people who were comparing her to biblical figures aren't going to get all ginned up about whoever the nominee is.

It's funny that we see things so differently. I was not aware of magical thinking regarding Palin. Her only magic moment was at the convention when she accepted the nomination. And she was truly remarkable at that event.

I think most of her support came from people who were enraged at how she was treated (or appeared to be treated) by the press. They saw her as beleaguered when she was really uninformed, which was unfortunate.

miceelf 12-07-2011 11:07 AM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233802)
It's funny that we see things so differently. I was not aware of magical thinking regarding Palin. Her only magic moment was at the convention when she accepted the nomination. And she was truly remarkable at that event.

I think most of her support came from epople who were enraged at how she was treated (or appeared to be treated) by the press.

She had a set of ardent supporters who compared her to various biblical figures. They composed songs, publically wept and fainted, etc.

We definitely see things differently. I remember a lot of nutty worship of Sarah Palin.

thouartgob 12-07-2011 02:07 PM

Daniel likes hard work, too bad his party finds it passe.
 
First of all Daniel is spot on about Trump and now that Romney isn't going to the Trump extravaganza I am sure he is thrilled.

The problem I have with his ode to hard work ( as valid as it may be ) is that there is little interest in his party when it comes to rewarding it. Calls to remove/reduce the minimum wage are constant on his side of the aisle, reducing or eliminating capital gains, removing regulations on worker safety, flat tax, supply-side nonsense and other charming policy positions of the right reduce the actual value of work.

The republican tendency is to throw more money and power at the rich and powerful at the expense of the average hard working american. They actually have no real interest in american workers and would love to not have to deal with them at all. American consumers are all well and good, for now, but workers ( hard working or otherwise ) are a problem to be avoided if possible.

TwinSwords 12-07-2011 11:23 PM

Re: World Historic Edition (Mark Schmitt & Daniel Foster)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233800)
The break-up of the Soviet Union in Reagan's term...

The Soviet Union didn't break up while Reagan was president.

miceelf 12-07-2011 11:39 PM

Re: Daniel likes hard work, too bad his party finds it passe.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thouartgob (Post 233843)

The republican tendency is to throw more money and power at the rich and powerful at the expense of the average hard working american. They actually have no real interest in american workers and would love to not have to deal with them at all.

We've kind of had a poll of sorts about which of us are religious and not, and it hasn't broken in the way one might have expected. I am curious about whether other people here have done manual labour for pay, and if so, what kind and over what period of time.

Don Zeko 12-08-2011 12:07 AM

Re: Daniel likes hard work, too bad his party finds it passe.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233920)
We've kind of had a poll of sorts about which of us are religious and not, and it hasn't broken in the way one might have expected. I am curious about whether other people here have done manual labour for pay, and if so, what kind and over what period of time.

Retaining walls. Only for a summer, however. I've got a total of probably 4 years of waiting tables squeezed in between various school as well. Also my brother and my dad and I built a house once.

Starwatcher162536 12-08-2011 12:32 AM

Re: Daniel likes hard work, too bad his party finds it passe.
 
I was an electrical helper on and off. In the aggregate, maybe two years. Electrician for about another two years. Maybe three years of work at various service sector work, all part time.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.