U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-22-2010, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,536 posts, read 8,192,972 times
Reputation: 5785

Advertisements

I agree with JViello. Blumenthal is a lawyer who is used to parsing words. I'm sure he chose his words carefully, thinking he could imply that he served in Vietnam without actually saying so, and then preserving his deniability by answering truthfully if asked directly. We've seen this in so many politicians, including the last few presidents.

Blumenthal is two things that we have in serious overabundance in government -- a self-serving career politician and a lawyer. That's reason enough to vote enough him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2010, 06:46 AM
 
Location: USA East Coast
4,445 posts, read 8,284,889 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
All I know is that they could run a monkey against Linda McMahon and I still would not vote for her. Her smug response when asked if this story came from her made me sick. It is dirty politics at its worst and she is the dirtiest. I am not a fan of Blumenthal but I hate when someone words get turned around by the media. It looks like he is still the front runner. It will be an interesting race to say the least. Jay
110% correct.

I could care less who goes to Washington…but Linda McMahon tries (like every politician) to hoodwink the masses that she’s a fresh face, something new, honest…etc. She is as low as the rest of them. SHE and her cronies tipped off the media, that’s what politicians do when their trailing in the polls – get some dirt on your opponent. Who knows…it might backfire…people might vote for Blumenthal just for the dirty politics.

Politicians spend about 85% of their time trying to destroy their opponents…and the 15% of the time attending to real public service for the people. Then we wonder why nothing gets done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,536 posts, read 8,192,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavehunter007 View Post
110% correct.

I could care less who goes to Washington…but Linda McMahon tries (like every politician) to hoodwink the masses that she’s a fresh face, something new, honest…etc. She is as low as the rest of them. SHE and her cronies tipped off the media, that’s what politicians do when their trailing in the polls – get some dirt on your opponent. Who knows…it might backfire…people might vote for Blumenthal just for the dirty politics.

Politicians spend about 85% of their time trying to destroy their opponents…and the 15% of the time attending to real public service for the people. Then we wonder why nothing gets done.
I doubt many people believe she's a truly fresh face. It really comes down to who you hate less. That's the state of politics. I can't say I like her, but I'm probably going to vote for her because I think Blumenthal is emblematic of everything that has been wrong with our politics for a long time. In a way, so is Linda McMahon. What kind of choice is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 07:10 AM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 18,203,970 times
Reputation: 3279
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavehunter007 View Post
110% correct.

I could care less who goes to Washington…but Linda McMahon tries (like every politician) to hoodwink the masses that she’s a fresh face, something new, honest…etc. She is as low as the rest of them. SHE and her cronies tipped off the media, that’s what politicians do when their trailing in the polls – get some dirt on your opponent. Who knows…it might backfire…people might vote for Blumenthal just for the dirty politics.

Politicians spend about 85% of their time trying to destroy their opponents…and the 15% of the time attending to real public service for the people. Then we wonder why nothing gets done.
While I don't disagree with your post, some of the terms you use to describe McMahon leaves one to believe you wouldn't vote for her even if she met all your criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
I doubt many people believe she's a truly fresh face. It really comes down to who you hate less. That's the state of politics. I can't say I like her, but I'm probably going to vote for her because I think Blumenthal is emblematic of everything that has been wrong with our politics for a long time. In a way, so is Linda McMahon. What kind of choice is that?
Sigh...yes, once again we are left with a good choice that has a snowballs chance in hell against the "machine". (Schiff)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 07:59 AM
 
5,037 posts, read 4,184,866 times
Reputation: 2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetto View Post
So what do you guys think about the vaunted Richard Blumenthals selective memory when it comes to his military service? His actual service amounted to fixing playground equipment, tents and delivering toys for tots ( at least a valuable deed, IMO).

This guy has no shame.

Who's he going to sue now??

I think the man's pathetic. Yet, I can almost guarantee he will win the election. This state is mostly liberal through and through and nothing will change that. This guy can lie over and over again and too many in this state will still vote for him.

Everyone complains about the crooks and liars in politics. Yet when they have a chance to not vote for one or vote one out, they dont because its "one of their own".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 08:04 AM
 
5,037 posts, read 4,184,866 times
Reputation: 2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
I agree with JViello. Blumenthal is a lawyer who is used to parsing words. I'm sure he chose his words carefully, thinking he could imply that he served in Vietnam without actually saying so, and then preserving his deniability by answering truthfully if asked directly. We've seen this in so many politicians, including the last few presidents.

Blumenthal is two things that we have in serious overabundance in government -- a self-serving career politician and a lawyer. That's reason enough to vote enough him.
Im sick of the "lawyers" and "law professors" running for office. We elected Obama, Mr "Law Professor" as President and well, you can see how well that's working out.

Blumenthal is a disgrace. Sure Linda M. wouldnt be my first choice but why would you take a pathological liar over anyone else? Id rather take someone who at least has run a business before. Someone who knows about running a company and having employees. There are far too many in politics and in DC that have never had a real job in their lives and that have never run a business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,536 posts, read 8,192,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucsLose View Post
Im sick of the "lawyers" and "law professors" running for office. We elected Obama, Mr "Law Professor" as President and well, you can see how well that's working out.

Blumenthal is a disgrace. Sure Linda M. wouldnt be my first choice but why would you take a pathological liar over anyone else? Id rather take someone who at least has run a business before. Someone who knows about running a company and having employees. There are far too many in politics and in DC that have never had a real job in their lives and that have never run a business.
Wherever I have a choice, I am going to vote against candidates who are lawyers and/or career politicians. People like Blumenthal are essentially parasites -- he has sucked the tit of the system for 20 years and contributed nothing, using the system purely for self-aggrandizement. What has he ever done or contributed? NOTHING. Electing people like him to office is the ruination of this country. People with his mindset have brought us so low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 09:18 AM
 
1,183 posts, read 1,286,837 times
Reputation: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
Sigh...yes, once again we are left with a good choice that has a snowballs chance in hell against the "machine". (Schiff)
Oh my god Schiff is a terrible choice. His funds in reality don't do so hot, and his belief in household-economics being superimposed onto fiscal policy is utter insanity. He's feeding off the misplaced anger over the housing crisis (which while important and what people on the ground level see is only a fraction of the problem) and completely glossing over what really did the banks in which was hyper-leveraging, fraud, **** poor risk analysis (taking each set of risks individually instead of understanding how obvious interconnections are), and outright gambling with the glut of capital thanks to the junk bond/foreign treasury/stock/pension funds markets and no referee to make sure everyone was on the up and up. The economy lost about $9T (I've seen figures up to $24T which is the churn of US' GDP for one year, but that could be world numbers) worth in assets and very little of that was tied up directly in the housing market. Plus, either he forgets or is malicious, but there are wayyyy more currency crisises with mineral based currency through history. His policies are pointless for the overall economy and downright dangerous for the general population. I can go on, but I have to go to work soon enough haha.

Back to Blummie: He isn't a professional public speaker, but the IS a politician. That's what they do, its' what we expect for them to get reelected. If you're pissed at the system petition the government to make it a appointed post of some sort which brings up issues itself. If he was found to have been bilking the government for un-worked time, taking bribes, or using his power to harass an individual for a personal vendetta then I think you have a case against him. You just don't like him, which is fine and please disagree with his politics but frankly you're making this out to be wayyy bigger than deserved. I personally think he looks like a weasel, and I don't really agree with his politics, but am I going to say he's a bad guy and a liar? Not at all, it would take something much much worse.

"Same thing as her add pointing out that he said he would NEVER EVER take PAC money...but now has a few hundred grand of it. That's not dirty, that's truth."

See this is an issue, and I'll def look into it. If it's true you better believe I might sit out the Senate vote or throw it away on a 3rd party (write in Dukakis just for lols).

Bucs,

"Im sick of the "lawyers" and "law professors" running for office. We elected Obama, Mr "Law Professor" as President and well, you can see how well that's working out."

Fine? I don't really know what you're insinuating exactly, but I guess things could be a bit better; however we were on the precipice of the abyss and frankly I enjoy not having to go to the Thunderdome to fill up my tank. You think I'm joking, and I kind of am, but we were heading to nowhere good and quick and Obama, despite all of his faults of which he has many, did the politically unpopular thing but made the system fairly stable (both health care insurance reform and the economy). He's still a crony of the rich, but at least from time to time he can tell them to sod off and do what is better for the economy (and by extension the rich, even if it's not what they "want"). If you're angered recovery hasn't been quick enough for your tastes fine, but don't act like it's his fault.

~Cheers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,536 posts, read 8,192,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
Oh my god Schiff is a terrible choice. His funds in reality don't do so hot, and his belief in household-economics being superimposed onto fiscal policy is utter insanity. He's feeding off the misplaced anger over the housing crisis (which while important and what people on the ground level see is only a fraction of the problem) and completely glossing over what really did the banks in which was hyper-leveraging, fraud, **** poor risk analysis (taking each set of risks individually instead of understanding how obvious interconnections are), and outright gambling with the glut of capital thanks to the junk bond/foreign treasury/stock/pension funds markets and no referee to make sure everyone was on the up and up. The economy lost about $9T (I've seen figures up to $24T which is the churn of US' GDP for one year, but that could be world numbers) worth in assets and very little of that was tied up directly in the housing market. Plus, either he forgets or is malicious, but there are wayyyy more currency crisises with mineral based currency through history. His policies are pointless for the overall economy and downright dangerous for the general population. I can go on, but I have to go to work soon enough haha.

Back to Blummie: He isn't a professional public speaker, but the IS a politician. That's what they do, its' what we expect for them to get reelected. If you're pissed at the system petition the government to make it a appointed post of some sort which brings up issues itself. If he was found to have been bilking the government for un-worked time, taking bribes, or using his power to harass an individual for a personal vendetta then I think you have a case against him. You just don't like him, which is fine and please disagree with his politics but frankly you're making this out to be wayyy bigger than deserved. I personally think he looks like a weasel, and I don't really agree with his politics, but am I going to say he's a bad guy and a liar? Not at all, it would take something much much worse.

"Same thing as her add pointing out that he said he would NEVER EVER take PAC money...but now has a few hundred grand of it. That's not dirty, that's truth."

See this is an issue, and I'll def look into it. If it's true you better believe I might sit out the Senate vote or throw it away on a 3rd party (write in Dukakis just for lols).

Bucs,

"Im sick of the "lawyers" and "law professors" running for office. We elected Obama, Mr "Law Professor" as President and well, you can see how well that's working out."

Fine? I don't really know what you're insinuating exactly, but I guess things could be a bit better; however we were on the precipice of the abyss and frankly I enjoy not having to go to the Thunderdome to fill up my tank. You think I'm joking, and I kind of am, but we were heading to nowhere good and quick and Obama, despite all of his faults of which he has many, did the politically unpopular thing but made the system fairly stable (both health care insurance reform and the economy). He's still a crony of the rich, but at least from time to time he can tell them to sod off and do what is better for the economy (and by extension the rich, even if it's not what they "want"). If you're angered recovery hasn't been quick enough for your tastes fine, but don't act like it's his fault.

~Cheers
Schiff gained some credibility because he called the housing mess back in 2006, and everybody laughed at him then.

I read one of his books, and I have some doubts about him overall, but I think some of what he says makes sense. People always look for the perfect economic theory, but it really doesn't exist. It's really more about finding the right balance among several theories that emphasize different things. Take any one philosophy too far, and you have disaster.

Our problem as a society is that we're captivated by vacuous slogans, and this applies to our economic theories too. We fall under the sway of a slogan, and then fail to recognize when we have pushed it to too much of an extreme.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 09:45 AM
 
5,037 posts, read 4,184,866 times
Reputation: 2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
Schiff gained some credibility because he called the housing mess back in 2006, and everybody laughed at him then.

I read one of his books, and I have some doubts about him overall, but I think some of what he says makes sense. People always look for the perfect economic theory, but it really doesn't exist. It's really more about finding the right balance among several theories that emphasize different things. Take any one philosophy too far, and you have disaster.

Our problem as a society is that we're captivated by vacuous slogans, and this applies to our economic theories too. We fall under the sway of a slogan, and then fail to recognize when we have pushed it to too much of an extreme.
Society can be just dumb sometimes. For example, no matter what you think of Obama, he got elected off of slogans of "Hope and Change", "Change you can believe in", and by being propped up by Hollywood and the media. Rather than actually looking into what he really believed and his record, people went off of his "rock star" image.

Im sick of career politicians. Im sick of liars and crooks. Yet we constantly elect them and re-elect them. We get dupped by the media/hollywood in some cases. We need to look at these people's records, their pasts, and their words. Blum is a liar. And he is just part of the machine that is in power and which power is growing and expanding. We need to stand up and say enough is enough.

Schiff isnt the only one who saw what was coming. Isnt it funny while Obama and everyone else puts the sole blame on Bush, that Bush and others raised flags about Fannie/Freddie back in 2004. Yet Barney Frank, Waters, and others fought back saying there was nothing wrong.

Blumenthal is going to do nothing but fall right in line with the current DC administration and im sorry, that is not good for the country and our future. But sadly, this predominately liberal state of Connecticut will elect him. With all the rich people in the state, its funny how they elect and support those who do nothing but bash the wealthy and those who create jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top