Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over

by grimgraphix / July 10, 2012 10:57 PM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
There really ought to be a House rule.....
by Josh K / July 10, 2012 11:04 PM PDT

....against this kind of grandstanding. It's a waste of time, money and resources. They know it will never pass, and even if it did, the president would veto it in a second. Maybe those Republicans ought to invest some of that energy in all that job-creating they say they're all for.

Collapse -
What about a national referendum on the bill?
by Steven Haninger / July 10, 2012 11:12 PM PDT

Who thinks it would stand as is? Who thinks the American people even understand it well enough to know both it's upsides and downsides? Who thinks our congress knows that either?

I think we're about to find out what it feels like to be a canary looking into the adit. Happy

Collapse -
Steven. Had there been a referendum in its first year it
by Ziks511 / July 12, 2012 12:11 AM PDT

would have passed handily. Since then there have now been billions spent on bad mouthing it, it has fallen below 50%. So when do you call the referendum and why? State's have referenda, not the Federal Government.

And what's an adit when it's at home, Cat I understand, Cat's mouth, I understand, Audit, I understand, Oblivion I understand but I can't make anything, even via anagrams out of adit. And spell checker can't either.

Rob

Collapse -
Not a typo and I'll explain

First off, my state did something of a mock referendum on the individual mandate portion of the health care bill. Results here I'd say that 65% against is fairly significant. I believe other states did the same and with largely similar results.

My "canary" image must have flown over your head for some reason. What I was trying to say is that we're about to head into the unknown with no assurance we'll come out alive. An "adit" is an entrance to a mineshaft. I imagine you've read what canaries were used for.

Collapse -
come on Josh, both parties want nothing to really happen
by Roger NC / July 11, 2012 8:06 AM PDT

in Congress before the election so they can blame the other.

Classic election year politics.

Collapse -
question
by James Denison / July 12, 2012 12:39 PM PDT

I know the president can veto a bill, but can he veto a repeal?

Collapse -
(NT) The repeal is a bill isn't it?
by Roger NC / July 15, 2012 5:55 AM PDT
In reply to: question
Collapse -
He can veto the repeal but
by TONI H / July 15, 2012 6:34 AM PDT
In reply to: question

if there are enough votes in the Senate, they can override any veto the President might have....

Collapse -
Veto would be much harder than passage, always.
by Roger NC / July 16, 2012 10:15 AM PDT

At least sometimes, even a few that voted for the passage won't vote for the veto override. Not sure why, but remember some comments about that fact a few years ago over another fight.

Collapse -
There aren't enough votes
by Josh K / July 16, 2012 10:32 PM PDT

They know that, which is what makes this a colossal waste of time and money. "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" my Aunt Fanny.

Collapse -
There will be soon, Josh
by TONI H / July 16, 2012 11:10 PM PDT

Even if by some Chicago thuggery miracle, BO gets back in.....the House and Senate will be swept by Republicans and the votes will be there to veto him for four more years.

Collapse -
RE:Even if by some Chicago thuggery miracle, BO gets back in
by JP Bill / July 16, 2012 11:51 PM PDT

4 years of complaining about Chicago thuggery?

Say it ain't so.

Collapse -
If the president is re-elected....
by Josh K / July 17, 2012 12:25 AM PDT

.....via one of the most fraud-proof electoral processes in the world, involving all fifty states and all kinds of monitoring, it will be due to "Chicago thuggery?"

LOL, oh my.

Collapse -
It took a court decision
by TONI H / July 17, 2012 1:39 AM PDT

to tell BO's DOJ to get the lists to Florida so they can make Florida 'voter fraud proof', Josh....It will also take another court decision to stop the same DOJ from harassing Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, et all from requiring photo ID's to vote there.

Get real.........Chicago thuggery is alive and well in the BO Administration

Collapse -
Not so dumb
by TONI H / July 10, 2012 11:18 PM PDT

The constituents WANT this vote.....for one reason only. They want it ON THE RECORD just before the elections in November which Democrats who voted for it the first time around (since nearly all of them did) and who are up for re-election NOW, will vote FOR it again, because most of those Democrats are NOT discussing this topic at their town hall campaign meetings or out on the campaign trail. They are all avoiding Obamacare like the plague...........

Reid is going to protect HIS Senate Dems by pocketing the bill and not allowing it to come up for a vote, which is typical of Reid, since he has pocketed nearly every House bill since 2010 that has come to the Senate......REID is where the gridlock is at, NOT the Senate itself. He doesn't want ANYTHING voted on that could ultimately be a decision maker for this election.

Collapse -
Uh... yeah. re: They want it ON THE RECORD
by grimgraphix / July 11, 2012 9:03 AM PDT
In reply to: Not so dumb

That was the whole point of my OP.

This is another example of Republican political pandering. The same pandering they have done for the past 3 1/2 years since Obama was elected.

Yeah, the Dems have done a shoddy job for the past couple of years... but the Republicans??? Well they are just an example of mud slinging do-nothings who have based their whole argument for support in national elections both past a present, with the premise of "Hey, at least we ain't Obama".

The Republicans bring NOTHING to the table. Their mantra for the past 12 years is "We need to give rich people more money". The tax breaks they handed out produced NOTHING. The deregulation they promoted produced a world wide depression.

And Obama? Obama did more of the same things that the Republicans did ! He spent money hand over fist. He reinforced laws that restrict civil liberties. He gave monetary handouts to the rich... AND TAX CUTS TOO !!! Obama has been the best Republican president since George Bush.

Collapse -
Right again Grim. I wish you'd quit getting in there ahead
by Ziks511 / July 12, 2012 12:13 AM PDT

of me. But I'm glad you have.

Rob

Collapse -
The House since 2010
by TONI H / July 10, 2012 11:19 PM PDT

has sent over a minimum of ten jobs creating bills, and Reid has pocketed every one of them......

Collapse -
Let's look at some of those "jobs" bills, shall we?
by Josh K / July 11, 2012 12:52 AM PDT
In reply to: The House since 2010

This is from the GOP's own website:

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/10/27/summary-of-jobs-bills-stalled

1. is only an attempt to remove some bureaucracy.

2. is an attempt to relax environmental laws.

3. is about net neutrality

4. Offshore drilling. OK, I'll give you that one, if it passed it would create jobs in the oil industry.

5. is a safety regulation. Surprising coming from the Republicans, but good for them.

6. related to #4.

7. has to do with permits. Seems like a reasonable idea but I fail to see how it's "job creating."

8. has to do with the EPA and state agencies regarding pollutants.

9. the summary is too vague. I'd have to read the bill.

10. has to do with Keystone, arguing that speeding up the process would create jobs. Sure, but the process has been delayed for a reason.

11. Also too vague.

There are more but you get the idea. I think calling these "jobs bills" is a stretch.

Collapse -
You evidently don't get the idea
by TONI H / July 11, 2012 1:53 AM PDT

of how our government is supposed to work, JP...........The House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate so they can make amendments, it goes back to the House for more debate/amendments or passes as submitted by the Senate, it goes to the president for signature, it becomes law. When the process is stopped in its tracks by the Senate leader (Reid) who refuses to even present it to the Senators for a vote or amendment debates, etc. (it's called 'tabling the bill') it goes nowhere and the president gets a talking point on tv about 'gridlock' and blames the Republicans when the gridlock is the Senate leader himself. There is no debate, there is no vote, and it's because the Senate leader won't present anything from the House since they took the majority in 2010. It doesn't matter whether YOU think those jobs bills are worthwhile or not, since you don't have anything to do with our country anyhow...what matters is that Reid isn't allowing anything to come up for discussion, debate, or a vote...........EVER.

Collapse -
This is the second time.....
by Josh K / July 11, 2012 2:27 AM PDT

......you have responded to one of my posts by attacking JP for being Canadian.

And if you think that the US economy is of no interest to our neighbors in Canada, you are truly myopic.

Collapse -
If I respond
by TONI H / July 11, 2012 3:22 AM PDT

to more than one post in a thread during the same session, my replies end up scattered. I have no control over where they land, Josh.....the only way to prevent that from happening is to resond to one post, close the window out, reopen a new session, note that all links of 'next unread' are now gone, hunt down the other post I wanted to reply to and then reply. It's a waste of time to keep doing that so I don't bother anymore....So I mention the person's name IN MY POST RIGHT AWAY that I am actually responding to. If you don't like that it ended up under YOUR post by accident, complain to Lee Koo and have them fix the software glitch that makes it happen.

I don't give a rat's about whether our economy affects CANADA.....I wasn't responding to THAT....I was responding to JP's idiotic sense that he knows how OUR law making process works when he obviously does NOT. Just because HE has a government that works for him doesn't mean that WE do........instead, we have a president who acts like a king more and more every day, and we have a Senate leader who is refusing to follow the basic rules of why they are in the Senate in the first place....represent the PEOPLE and not the president's agenda.

Collapse -
re: I don't give a rat's about whether our economy affects C
by grimgraphix / July 11, 2012 8:49 AM PDT
In reply to: If I respond

"I don't give a rat's about whether our economy affects CANADA"

Really Toni? Canada is one of the most important, and GEOGRAPHICALLY CLOSEST energy producing allies that the US has. We may be depending on them more and more as oil becomes less available from more distant parts of the world.

Save the jingoistic bravado.

Oh, and if you can't take the time to link a reply to the intended person... then you must be lazy indeed, since you won't take the time to even preface your rants with the qualifier... "this is directed to...".

Collapse -
My rat's comment
by TONI H / July 11, 2012 9:04 AM PDT

was because Josh again diverted the conversation from what I was talking about. Of course, our economies are linked as allies; however, that was NOT the topic we were talking about and Josh knew it.

I'm really getting tired of liberals continuously taking a legitimate posted topic and veering it off almost immediately into something that has nothing to do with it just because they are either uncomfortable with responding or because they can't refute it.

Josh at least posts replies that make sense, even if I don't agree with him most times. JP is admittedly an antagonistic piece of work and posts nonsense just to see his name show up here.

And, no...I refuse to keep closing SE, reopening SE and now losing the 'next message' link to find and hunt down the second post I want to reply to when those replies are within the same thread. I shouldn't have to do that in order to reply to another post within the same thread in an attempt to keep it from posting in the wrong place. I have complained about it a number of times with no fix in sight. I have made a strong effort to qualify my titled reply to the appropriate person and do that nearly every time. For the particular post you are referring to, I didn't put it into the titled subject line, but rather within the first ten words of the post itself. Josh could easily see that and instead decided to nitpick and complain because it was the SECOND time one of my posts to JP landed under Josh's post. He can grow a pair and find something more important to complain about instead of whining about a software glitch that I can't control.

Collapse -
RE: JP is admittedly an antagonistic piece of work and post
by JP Bill / July 11, 2012 1:18 PM PDT
In reply to: My rat's comment
JP is admittedly an antagonistic piece of work and posts nonsense just to see his name show up here.

It now appears i don't even have to make a post to have my name show up here.

THIS is the FIRST post I've made in this thread.

I hadn't made a post today since this post about the FOX interview which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with

You evidently don't get the idea - New!

by TONI H - 7/11/12 8:53 AM

In Reply to: Let's look at some of those "jobs" bills, shall we? by Josh K

of how our government is supposed to work, JP...........The House passes a bill,


Incorrect name of person you're responding to, subject has nothing to do with posts made by the person you "claim" to be responding to AND the post is in the wrong thread.

Tell us what "the way your gov operates" has to do with the "FOX interview with airheads"


and you tell others to

grow a pair and find something more important to complain about instead of whining about a software glitch that I can't control.

A "software glitch" that puts responses in another different thread?

I doubt it.

And, no...I refuse to keep closing SE, reopening SE and now losing the 'next message' link to find and hunt down

Just don't mention any names and people will never know if you've posted in the correct place or not, as far as staying on subject...fergitaboutit.
Collapse -
I apologize
by TONI H / July 11, 2012 9:58 PM PDT

Again....because of the software glitch, I evidently had three separate windows opened at the same time from two DIFFERENT threads this time in order to NOT lose my place and DID reply to the correct person but with the wrong name this time. Two windows dealt with replies in the same thread, but Josh's was alone. My fault this time, but my reply to him "You evidently" still is correct and stands.

Collapse -
RE:Again....because of the software glitch
by JP Bill / July 11, 2012 10:41 PM PDT
In reply to: I apologize
I evidently had three separate windows opened at the same time from two DIFFERENT threads this time in order to NOT lose my place and DID reply to the correct person but with the wrong name this time.

Josh made a post about jobs bills....you responded with a post about jobs bills (and a rant about MY ignorance of American politics) and referred to Josh as JP.

THAT is not a software glitch.
Collapse -
That's what I apologized for
by TONI H / July 11, 2012 10:57 PM PDT

when my reply link gets clicked, the bottom part opens up but the original post I'm replying to is so far up on the page, that the original poster's name is not in the screen anymore. I replied, but didn't realize that I was posting to Josh instead of one of your posts that was in a different window. If I had scrolled the reply window down, I would have realized that it was Josh and not you..........again....my fault, this time.

Collapse -
RE: but didn't realize that I was posting to Josh instead o
by JP Bill / July 11, 2012 11:52 PM PDT
but didn't realize that I was posting to Josh instead of one of your posts that was in a different window

That begs the question...

WHY were you responding to me with a post about "jobs bills" when I had not made any posts about "jobs bills" and Josh had?

THEN you say you put JP instead of Josh in your response, in error.

Just give it up Toni...PLEASE don't ever mention "software glitch" again.

Don't EVER apologize for "software glitches" UNLESS you are the owner of the website that has "software glitches".

"software glitches" don't put "JP" and make rants about his posting style in the text of a post.
Collapse -
Really Toni. Because when I click Reply, I get your header
by Ziks511 / July 12, 2012 12:37 AM PDT

and your name, and the text (if I'm close). Otherwise I get the header and your name at the top of my post so I know to whom I am replying. So besides confusing 3 separate windows, you can't read the name to whom you're posting??? Have you considered Glasses?

That's what is known as a Lame excuse in almost any context. Try harder next time for a Plausible excuse.

Rob

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.