|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 25, 2007 22:57:13 GMT -5
...continues to whine about people "forgetting" Riley's tax referendum...
Listen up guys....that's hogwash...and there are two reasons...
1. We could not POSSIBLY forget it if we listen to 101.1...we are reminded of it EVERY TIME someone mentions Bob Riley...so...if you want to say we IGNORED that to overwhelmingly re-elect him, then OK....
and the second reason will state why I ignored it...
2. There was no viable alternative to Bob Riley for governor of Alabama. Roy Moore ran only on the fact that he was not Bob Riley...he bought into the 101.1 hype that "anyone" but Bob Riley should be governor...Lucy Baxley certainly was not a viable alternative to Riley if for no other reason than she is Lucy Baxley...
so...stop accusing me of "forgetting"...it's horse crap...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 25, 2007 23:06:21 GMT -5
bama-
Good call on both points.
I didn't vote for Riley- I wrote in Sir Charles- but, if I thought that Baxley had any real chance at getting elected I would have held my nose and pulled Riley's lever (so to speak).
It's the rare instance that a bad Republican isn't better than a good Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 26, 2007 18:42:33 GMT -5
a good Democrat would have been nice...
unfortunately, Zell Miller wasn't running....
|
|
|
Post by LTBF on Mar 26, 2007 21:11:15 GMT -5
It got to the point where I was voting for Riley just to tick off Russ and Dee.
When someone runs against a legislature on the platform of being against the pay raise, will they ask that person if they will be accepting the lower salary? After all, that's exactly what they are doing to all the "no" votes now.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Mar 26, 2007 21:14:29 GMT -5
No, because the job pays what it pays. The problem with the "no" voters is they knew it would pass, so they look like good guys by saying "no." Asking them to not take the money is more than fair. Go read the responses, some aren't taking it and some are.
Why is this question wrong?
|
|
|
Post by LTBF on Mar 26, 2007 21:20:44 GMT -5
You can ask whatever questions you like. I just think harping on them is a bit unfair and they may get caught up an an anti-incumbancy sweep in 2010.
I don't think all the "no" people did it just to make themselves look good. Some may have and some (like Patricia Todd) as much as admitted it. But I don't think they all did it for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Mar 27, 2007 0:36:42 GMT -5
...continues to whine and the second reason will state why I ignored it... Are you affilliated with the show? You seem to love these guys a lot. Just wondering. You love the Florida Gaytors a touch much.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 27, 2007 3:18:59 GMT -5
[Are you affilliated with the show? You seem to love these guys a lot. The original post in this thread is mostly talking about the "old" 101.1 hosts who are all in lockstep with their amazement that Riley could have been so overwhelmingly re-elected after what they ALL felt like should have been his political suicide... I can understand why Dale and Chris would get right into step with that, because they have had no impetus to explore the background for themselves... But Dale, Chris, Burt, Kurt, Lee, and Matt are all kinda like Pavlov's rats on this subject...if you say to them that the people of Alabama will "remember" what these legislators did, they respond as if on reflex: "Well, I wouldn't expect them to remember. After all, they 'forgot' Bob Riley's tax referendum." So, the point of my original post was to point out the shallowness on the part of ALL the aforementioned hosts regarding this subject... No...I'm not affiliated with any of the 101.1.programs... Think I should be? As far as my "love" for any of them...I couldn't say...I have never met any of them...
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 27, 2007 3:43:30 GMT -5
Why is this question wrong? It isn't... But...based on your grilling of Jack Williams (practically in his sleep), you will continue to ask questions until you have a full audit... Has he given you his to-the-penny spreadsheet yet?
|
|
|
Post by firestud2829 on Mar 27, 2007 17:46:42 GMT -5
Not to be a stick in the mud, but you do realize that Pavlov dealt with dogs, right?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 27, 2007 19:56:59 GMT -5
Not to be a stick in the mud, but you do realize that Pavlov dealt with dogs, right? True...his unconditioned response experiments used dogs...he used rats in experiments involving overcrowded incarceration practices..."survival of the meanest"...you score a TKO...
|
|
|
Post by D Jones on Apr 23, 2007 11:41:08 GMT -5
Not to be a stick in the mud, but you do realize that Pavlov dealt with dogs, right?
and during ww2 at the start of Barbarosa, the russians trained dogs to go under tanks by placing thier food there. When the german tanks came the dogs were fitted with bombs and long "stick" triggers so that when they went hunting for food the tank go boom. Problem was 1. the germans shot most of the dogs before getting tot he tank. 2 the dogs were trained to look for food under russian tanks.
Your Pavlov point and this story tell the downfall of 101.1
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 16:03:40 GMT -5
I'm surprised the dogs lived long enough to be trained.
When it's 40 degrees below zero and you haven't eaten anything but snowcones for a week, leg of dog can get to look mightly tasty.
|
|