Teabonics Sign of the Day
Wingnuts • Views: 3,668
Today’s example of the new dialect known as “Teabonics” comes to you courtesy of Fox News:
471 comments
2 |
Shiplord Kirel Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:36:27am |
Sounds like some kind of intestinal tract medication.
| 4 |
darthstar Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:37:21am |
Is that an actual typo? I'm surprised Fox spelled Palin's name right.
| 5 |
MrSilverDragon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:37:32am |
I have to confess I had to take a second look before I caught the error. I am Lisdexic, however...
| 6 |
Joo-LiZ Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:37:59am |
Palin's Im a PCT
What is a "PCT"?.... Must be some kind of code!
| 7 |
darthstar Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:38:44am |
re: #6 Joo-LiZ
Palin's Im a PCT
What is a "PCT"?... Must be some kind of code!
Pathetic Crusty Trollop.
| 8 |
Shiplord Kirel Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:39:01am |
At the time of the Columbia disaster, CNN put up a graphic declaring that the Shuttle had been traveling at "20 times the speed of light."
| 9 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:39:48am |
[Link: www.newshounds.us...]
"Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them."
Oh noes! Disciplinary action!
How about some disciplinary action against the heads of the network for blatantly lying about national security?
| 10 |
lostlakehiker Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:39:48am |
Who would have thought that Palin would admit "Ima PC" on her tee?
| 11 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:39:50am |
Maybe they were talking about Palin's email? Her "IMAP ConnecTion?"
| 12 |
MrSilverDragon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:40:08am |
re: #6 Joo-LiZ
Palin's Im a PCT
What is a "PCT"?... Must be some kind of code!
I got it! It's a Mac commercial.
Im a PCt...
...and I'm a Mac that can spell.
| 13 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:40:14am |
This has to be an aberration, since it's coming from pro-Democrat union members who normally eschew violence.
[Link: wcbstv.com...]
| 14 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:40:49am |
re: #4 darthstar
At least they didn't center her in the camera view. That would have been slightly to competent.
| 15 |
jamesfirecat Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:41:15am |
This brings to mind that poll which added up to 120% percent, because Fox News strives to reach that 20% of Americans who nobody else cares about!
| 16 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:41:50am |
Someone needs to rap in teabonics. Cut an album, with Dre producing it, or Danger Mouse. Someone needs to do beat poetry in Teabonics. This needs to happen.
| 19 |
abbyadams Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:42:47am |
Thank God she's not using a teleprompter, is all I can say.
/
| 20 |
jamesfirecat Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:42:53am |
re: #14 Obdicut
At least they didn't center her in the camera view. That would have been slightly to competent.
At least they didn't shoot the camera angle at an upwards tilt so as to make her look taller and let everyone know how her will is triumphing over those pathetic sub human democrats....
| 21 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:43:43am |
re: #13 tradewind
Yes because a tasteless joke is the same thing as threatening to kill someone.
| 22 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:43:56am |
re: #13 tradewind
Make sure you guys keep pimping that Union story everywhere you can. I've seen about four different people post that this morning.
It's reprehensible on the part of the Union to joke about Cozine dying. They know this, which is why they've apologized immediately.
[Link: www.app.com...]
The New Jersey Education Association was more contrite. It issued an apology on Friday, saying the attack wasn't funny and that it takes away from the more serious discussion the group would like to have with the governor. NJEA President Barbara Keshishian said she would try to apologize personally to Christie.
But keep presenting it as though it shows that Democrats or pro-Democratic groups are the ones responsible for whipping up the violent rhetoric. It's not completely transparent or anything.
| 23 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:44:14am |
re: #18 SpaceJesus
ahahahaha really? blogs that comment on comments here? Isn't that like having a blog about bellybutton lint? :D
| 24 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:44:35am |
re: #23 WindUpBird
blogospheric navel-gazing.
| 26 |
SpaceJesus Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:44:49am |
re: #23 WindUpBird
ahahahaha really? blogs that comment on comments here? Isn't that like having a blog about bellybutton lint? :D
it's a blog for commenting on a another blog that comments on lgf actually
| 27 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:45:40am |
re: #22 Obdicut
Uh, by Cozine, I mean Christie. Apologies.
Now to apply for a job as a fact-checker at Fox.
| 28 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:45:52am |
Please don't link to those creeps. It makes them feel important.
| 29 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:46:03am |
re: #15 jamesfirecat
While Fox has the greatest audience share ever, CNN's numbers are sinking like a stone, approaching those of MSNBC, and I suppose that's just evidence that most American viewers aren't people worth caring about.//
The masses are just to[sic] stoopid to appreciate unbiased reporting.
We're doomed.
| 30 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:47:08am |
re: #13 tradewind
It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep control
I remember doing the talking point
Drinking those moments when
The blackness would hit me and the void would be calling
Let's do the talking point again...
Let's do the talking point again!
| 31 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:47:11am |
| 32 |
darthstar Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:47:13am |
re: #14 Obdicut
At least they didn't center her in the camera view. That would have been slightly to competent.
They had to put her over her name so her followers wouldn't start printing signs reading "I support Sarah IMAPCT"
| 33 |
SpaceJesus Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:48:16am |
re: #28 Charles
Please don't link to those creeps. It makes them feel important.
they also have a picture of you as mao for some reason
| 34 |
jamesfirecat Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:48:37am |
re: #30 WindUpBird
It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep controlI remember doing the talking point
Drinking those moments when
The blackness would hit me and the void would be calling
Let's do the talking point again...
Let's do the talking point again!
Sixty Nine cents please!
| 35 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:48:44am |
re: #22 Obdicut
Good to know that at least Democratic apologies can be accepted at face value. Too bad they're not willing to extend the same courtesy.
| 36 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:48:59am |
I'm honestly wondering how the hell someone who's in charge of graphics that will be seen by millions of people can misspell a dead simple word like "impact."
Two syllables. Six letters. This is beyond pathetic.
| 37 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:49:22am |
re: #31 Obdicut
The joke that it is.
NPR is not a cable station, and most of its audience is radio.
| 38 |
Joo-LiZ Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:49:35am |
OT, but these threads are coming and going very quickly today:
Fascinating (dare I say, inspirational) story, if true:
In a trip to visit Israel, Rabbi Berel Wein attended morning services in a synagogue in Jerusalem. He relates that, unlike his own synagogue, which has benches facing the front of the synagogue, this synagogue had tables and benches, so he was forced to look at those praying opposite him. A tall, blue-eyed, blond-haired man and three blond small boys walked in and sat down opposite him. Rabbi Wein is used to the racial diversity of the citizens in Israel so little surprises him, but this was different; this particular family was definitely Aryan.
More noteworthy than their racial features was the seriousness and intensity of their praying. The children were especially well-behaved and followed the service dutifully without once wavering in their concentration. For Rabbi Wein, accustomed to the more freewheeling American child, it was an unusual experience.
Afterward, the rabbi remarked to a friend that they looked like fine people. His friend said that the man was a microbiologist at Hebrew University who happened to have an extraordinary story to tell. "Would you like to hear it?" he asked, and without waiting for an answer, called to his fellow congregant, "Avraham, this is Rabbi Berel Wein. I'm sure he would like to hear your story."
| 40 |
Ben Jephazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:49:45am |
re: #31 Obdicut
NPR has a larger audience share than Fox.
What do you make of that?
It gives me hope. It's not shrill, and they are pretty centrist (if a little left-center). There are good sources to balance it with. I start my morning with NPR, and obviously spend at least part of my day here.
| 41 |
MrSilverDragon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:49:53am |
re: #30 WindUpBird
It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep controlI remember doing the talking point
Drinking those moments when
The blackness would hit me and the void would be calling
Let's do the talking point again...
Let's do the talking point again!
+1 for Rocky Horror Picture Show reference.
(near and dear to my heart, was in a cast for 2 1/2 years in the DC area)
| 42 |
Shiplord Kirel Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:50:31am |
re: #22 Obdicut
Make sure you guys keep pimping that Union story everywhere you can. I've seen about four different people post that this morning.
It's reprehensible on the part of the Union to joke about Cozine dying. They know this, which is why they've apologized immediately.
[Link: www.app.com...]
But keep presenting it as though it shows that Democrats or pro-Democratic groups are the ones responsible for whipping up the violent rhetoric. It's not completely transparent or anything.
But, Obdicut, how can we demonstrate our wit, power, and status if not by adopting a special set of rules? The inbred ancestral British aristocracy did it, the antebellum southern slave-drivers planters did it, and the great 19th century robber-barons entrepreneurs did it. Why should our current proper, God-ordained leadership ignore such traditional precedent?
////
| 43 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:51:26am |
re: #40 3eff Jeff
Squidward Tentacles sez:
"You can't fool me..... I listen to public radio".
| 44 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:51:58am |
re: #35 tradewind
Good to know that at least Democratic apologies can be accepted at face value. Too bad they're not willing to extend the same courtesy.
How so? Can you show an equivalence? What apology from a GOP member am I supposed to be taking at face value that I'm not?
It was a bad, unfunny, stupid joke that's offensive as hell. The national union has apologized for it. It's being made much of in order to claim that the Democrats are just as responsible for the violent rhetoric, or that the 'political class' are. It's not true.
| 45 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:52:42am |
re: #37 tradewind
The joke that it is.
NPR is not a cable station, and most of its audience is radio.
How is NPR a joke, exactly?
I'm aware they're a radio station. Can you explain why that changes that their audience is larger than Fox's?
| 46 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:53:23am |
re: #45 Obdicut
If you can't decipher that one, maybe you need to listen to more public radio.
| 47 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:54:01am |
re: #40 3eff Jeff
I'd say that NPR pays attention to a lot of left-of-center issues, but tends to provide a right-of-center political analysis on larger topics. But in general, I agree; they're simply good at reporting things.
| 49 |
Ben Jephazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:54:20am |
re: #43 tradewind
Read 20 different papers from all over the world and all over the political spectrum. Once you are done, the pattern of lies will reveal itself and you can understand the truth by induction.
| 50 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:54:31am |
re: #46 tradewind
How about you just speak plainly instead of pussyfooting around?
| 51 |
darthstar Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:55:26am |
re: #36 Charles
I'm honestly wondering how the hell someone who's in charge of graphics that will be seen by millions of people can misspell a dead simple word like "impact."
Two syllables. Six letters. This is beyond pathetic.
Well, the a and the p are so close together on the keyboard, it's easy to see how one could accidentally hit them out of sequence.
/
| 53 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:56:16am |
I wonder what the faces of the wing-nuts are gonna look like when they don't manage to even come close to taking back the house OR the senate?
| 55 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:57:11am |
re: #53 Sigma_x
They'll just claim ACORN stole the election.
| 56 |
researchok Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:57:23am |
Problems with graphics are the least of the problems at FOX News.
| 57 |
Four More Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:57:24am |
re: #53 Sigma_x
I wonder what the faces of the wing-nuts are gonna look like when they don't manage to even come close to taking back the house OR the senate?
They'll demand that their candidates be more conservative.
| 58 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:57:40am |
From the Drudge site; the spelled all THESE words right...
GINGRICH: Obama 'most radical president ever'...
LIMBAUGH: Obama 'inflicting untold damage on this great country'...
PALIN: Obama's Nuke Stance Like Kid Who Says 'Punch Me in Face'...
LIZ CHENEY: Obama Putting America on 'Path to Decline'...
HANNITY: Obama 'Is a Socialist'...
SAVAGE: 'Obama The Destroyer'...
| 59 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:58:12am |
re: #49 3eff Jeff
You might want to start yourself by looking up the definition of ' learning by induction'.
Hint: it doesn't emanate from a newspaper.
| 61 |
Decatur Deb Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:58:35am |
re: #53 Sigma_x
I wonder what the faces of the wing-nuts are gonna look like when they don't manage to even come close to taking back the house OR the senate?
Nate Silver on 538 has a caution flag out today. When Fox tells me the Repubs can win, it means nothing. When 538 does, I pay attention.
| 62 |
darthstar Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:58:45am |
re: #53 Sigma_x
I wonder what the faces of the wing-nuts are gonna look like when they don't manage to even come close to taking back the house OR the senate?
| 63 |
Joo-LiZ Fri, Apr 9, 2010 11:59:10am |
re: #60 Sigma_x
They (blushing.)
Isn't it fun when that happens on a post ABOUT typos/typing correctly?
| 65 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:00:49pm |
re: #53 Sigma_x
Yeah. The Harvard Political Review wonders, too....
[Link: hpronline.org...]
| 66 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:02:58pm |
Yeah, I saw that. Made me sick to my stomach. However, the facts are these...
---The Dow? Up from 7,000 to 11,000.
---Jobs? 700,000 losses a month to 160,000 jobs created.
---Recovery/Stimulus Act? Added 1.8 million jobs.
---GDP (economic growth)? -6 percent to +6 percent. (Technically, the recession is over.)
---Housing prices? Up 20%.
---Affordable Health Care now a reality (plus you won't get cut off mid-chemo.)
If the democrats stick to the facts, they win. Period. No matter how much FOX tries to lie about the "imapct" of his presidency.
| 67 |
Gus Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:03:36pm |
On crackpot David Barton on the Glenn Beck show:
Be Afraid
Submitted by Kyle on April 9, 2010 - 10:00am
We already knew that Glenn Beck has recently begun making David Barton's pseudo-history a central part of his agenda and presentations, especially in the live events he's been holding around the country.
But last night Beck more or less turned his nightly Fox program over the Barton to deliver his patented brand of biased history to Beck's national audience...
| 68 |
SpaceJesus Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:05:42pm |
re: #53 Sigma_x
I wonder what the faces of the wing-nuts are gonna look like when they don't manage to even come close to taking back the house OR the senate?
or the presidency
| 69 |
humpty dumpty was pushed Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:06:59pm |
Typos are good fun but a Palin wardrobe malfunction would really make my day. I`m saying that in a non-threatening, post-partisan, "girls are beautiful" kinda way.
| 70 |
Ben Jephazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:07:07pm |
| 71 |
Four More Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:09:02pm |
"If in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all of the rules ahead of time and they've complied with the United Nations on nuclear proliferation, if they fire against the United States a biological weapon, a chemical weapon or maybe a cyber attack, well then we aren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons," Bachmann said. "Doesn't that make us all feel safe?" - Michelle Bachman
Yeah, because when I'm cut of from the porn my first thought is "someone needs to get nuked!"
| 72 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:09:45pm |
re: #67 Gus 802
On crackpot David Barton on the Glenn Beck show:
Be Afraid
Submitted by Kyle on April 9, 2010 - 10:00am
That show was one of the most appalling things I've ever seen on television.
| 73 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:09:54pm |
re: #69 humpty dumpty was pushed
Typos are good fun but a Palin wardrobe malfunction would really make my day.
I wouldn't hold my breath.... you're probably going to have to get your happy day somewhere else.
| 74 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:10:12pm |
re: #71 JasonA
Yeah, because when I'm cut of from the porn my first thought is "someone needs to get nuked!"
uh isn't that everyone's reaction? people get pissed when their batin is interrupted
| 75 |
Four More Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:10:56pm |
re: #74 Dreggas
uh isn't that everyone's reaction? people get pissed when their batin is interrupted
Seriously. Defcon 1!
| 76 |
humpty dumpty was pushed Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:11:08pm |
re: #73 tradewind
Yeah, you`re right. I don`t see it happening.
| 77 |
GatorAtLaw Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:11:38pm |
re: #75 JasonA
Seriously. Defcon 1!
Happened yesterday. I... I don't want to think about it.
Just too painful.
| 78 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:11:51pm |
re: #68 SpaceJesus
I don't think there's much chance of unseating POTUS, but the House and Senate are definitely within reach.
Since the American public historically prefers divided government, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Every now and then they go overboard and give all three branches to the same party, but inevitably the hangover jerks them back to reality and balance resumes.
| 79 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:12:13pm |
re: #68 SpaceJesus
Well, we shall see, I guess. I really can't get over how much shit they're throwing his way. The LIES. Allow me to repost this all in one post...
Here's the nutjobs ranting about Obama...
GINGRICH: Obama 'most radical president ever'...
LIMBAUGH: Obama 'inflicting untold damage on this great country'...
PALIN: Obama's Nuke Stance Like Kid Who Says 'Punch Me in Face'...
LIZ CHENEY: Obama Putting America on 'Path to Decline'...
HANNITY: Obama 'Is a Socialist'...
SAVAGE: 'Obama The Destroyer'...
And here's the facts...
The Dow? Up from 7,000 to 11,000.
Jobs? 700,000 losses a month to 160,000 jobs created.
Recovery/Stimulus Act? Added 1.8 million jobs.
GDP (economic growth)? -6 percent to +6 percent. (Technically, the recession is over.)
Housing prices? Up 20%.
Affordable Health Care now available to 32 mln more Americans.
How do they reconcile this in their minds? I don't get it - is it simply because he's black, this loathing and contempt they have for him? What happened to not"emboldening the US's enemies during wartime?" What happened to standing behind our President when our "troops are in harm's way?"
| 80 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:12:23pm |
| 81 |
Four More Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:12:44pm |
re: #77 GatorAtLaw
Happened yesterday. I... I don't want to think about it.
Just too painful.
Nor do I want to hear about it. :)
| 82 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:13:07pm |
re: #66 Sigma_x
Yeah, I saw that. Made me sick to my stomach. However, the facts are these...
---The Dow? Up from 7,000 to 11,000.
---Jobs? 700,000 losses a month to 160,000 jobs created.
---Recovery/Stimulus Act? Added 1.8 million jobs.
---GDP (economic growth)? -6 percent to +6 percent. (Technically, the recession is over.)
---Housing prices? Up 20%.
---Affordable Health Care now a reality (plus you won't get cut off mid-chemo.)If the democrats stick to the facts, they win. Period. No matter how much FOX tries to lie about the "imapct" of his presidency.
Obama did all of that?
| 83 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:13:18pm |
re: #77 GatorAtLaw
bet it made ya real blue.
| 84 |
GatorAtLaw Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:13:32pm |
| 85 |
_RememberTonyC Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:13:48pm |
it's not a typo, it's an abbreviation for "I'm a percentage."
/
| 86 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:14:08pm |
re: #82 Aceofwhat?
No, he had NOTHING to do with any of it. It all happened in SPITE of him.
| 87 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:14:36pm |
| 89 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:15:20pm |
re: #79 Sigma_x
He can toss out the lies with the best of them. C-span broadcasts for legislative debate on his bills , no lobbyists, work with** Republicans, yada yada...
** not a synonym for ' lecture to '
| 90 |
darthstar Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:16:05pm |
| 91 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:16:09pm |
re: #86 Sigma_x
No, he had NOTHING to do with any of it. It all happened in SPITE of him.
Ok. See, i wasn't going to blame him for total jobs lost since he took office, but since we're defining the economy in strict 4-year windows, i guess the millions of jobs lost ARE his fault.
good grief
| 92 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:16:56pm |
re: #89 tradewind
He can toss out the lies with the best of them. C-span broadcasts for legislative debate on his bills , no lobbyists, work with** Republicans, yada yada...
** not a synonym for ' lecture to '
Wow. That's the best you can come up with? THAT'S your retort?!
If that's it, the democrats win.
| 93 |
carefulnow Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:17:04pm |
re: #64 prairiefire
Thank you. I couldn't resist posting in reply to the "pussyfooting" comment.
| 94 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:17:37pm |
And what's yada, yada? That implies that there's more campaign promises broken. Such as...
| 95 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:17:54pm |
re: #66 Sigma_x
---Affordable Health Care now a reality (plus you won't get cut off mid-chemo.)
How's that working out in the real world ? What happened to ' pre-existing conditions, no problem? '
Anyone seen their premiums lowered yet?
| 96 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:18:12pm |
| 97 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:19:05pm |
re: #92 Sigma_x
It has nothing to do with who wins or loses. You seemed to protest that Obama was the subject of lies.
It works both ways. If he dishes 'em out, he should be able to take them.
| 98 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:19:33pm |
re: #95 tradewind
How's that working out in the real world ? What happened to ' pre-existing conditions, no problem? '
Anyone seen their premiums lowered yet?
Are you serious? It just got passed a week or so ago. You're not going to see the real benefits of that until starting in September at the earliest.
So I guess that makes it a failure in your mind, right?
| 99 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:20:21pm |
re: #95 tradewind
How's that working out in the real world ? What happened to ' pre-existing conditions, no problem? '
Anyone seen their premiums lowered yet?
YES BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IMMEDIATELY AND THERE IS NO PROCESS IT IS LIKE MAGIC THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT OF THE USA JUST TURNS ON A DIME LIKE A TOTALLY SWEET CORVETTE
| 101 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:20:52pm |
re: #97 tradewind
It has nothing to do with who wins or loses. You seemed to protest that Obama was the subject of lies.
It works both ways. If he dishes 'em out, he should be able to take them.
Man, that's just... lame.
Are you seriously equating Obama saying that he'd televise debates with someone saying he's destroying America? Really?
| 102 |
Stanghazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:21:26pm |
re: #80 Dreggas
From that article:
But I'm also curious about that other point. Palin thinks the president treated Karzai "poorly," and then implicitly defended Afghan president's recent antagonism towards the U.S. Oddly, Liz Cheney appeared at the same conference last night, and also chastised Obama for not being friendlier to Karzai.
Since when do right-wing Republicans side with Karzai over the U.S. leadership? I don't mean that as snark; I genuinely didn't realize that the new line in far-right circles was to defend Karzai, and I'm not at all sure how they arrived at this point.
Keep in mind, Karzai has come under bipartisan fire in the U.S. lately, first after accusing the West of interfering in Afghanistan's recent election, and then again when Karzai threatened to join forces with the Taliban. Obama, meanwhile, has been urging the Afghan administration to crack down on the corruption and inefficiencies that plague Karzai's government.
Palin and Cheney are on Karzai's side? Why?
Have we reached the point at which anyone who draws a rebuke from the Obama White House is necessarily going to get support from right-wing Republicans? It's almost as if we've entered a new era of the Blame-America-First crowd, with far-right clowns like Palin and Cheney taking the lead.
How do they reconcile this?
| 103 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:22:08pm |
re: #98 Sigma_x
Are you serious? It just got passed a week or so ago. You're not going to see the real benefits of that until starting in September at the earliest.
So I guess that makes it a failure in your mind, right?
The dumbassery. it is breathtaking. Imagine if Tradewind was building a house. Like after twenty minutes of pouring concrete for a foundation, "Is the hosue done yet?!?!? I'm moving in now! I have my gilt framed portrait of Ronald Reagan and my furniture!"
| 104 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:23:04pm |
re: #100 carefulnow
Yes! Love that one, too.
I mow have two devon rexes which are like tiny miniature devil cats, and they make my sphynx look huge. They're like scheming little monkeys, they get into EVERYTHING
| 105 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:23:36pm |
re: #103 WindUpBird
Ronald Reagan was a commie who wanted us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 1/3rd, remember. He had a fool's vision of a world free from atomic weapons.
| 106 |
Shiplord Kirel Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:24:05pm |
Just heard that the Qatari shoe-smoker whose bad joke set off an alert the other day has been "re-assigned" by his own government. A State Department spokesman said, "We welcome that."
| 107 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:26:05pm |
re: #98 Sigma_x
Are you serious? It just got passed a week or so ago. You're not going to see the real benefits of that until starting in September at the earliest.
So I guess that makes it a failure in your mind, right?
Of course there is no impact now.
On the other hand, good luck using the health care bill as fuel for democratic gains in November. I have Scott Brown on the phone for you, but i need you to hang on a second...he's laughing hysterically...
| 108 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:26:44pm |
Here's what I would LOVE those of you who can't stand Obama to defend, even half-heartedly -
What happened to, when Bush was President, it was tantamount to treason to bash the President while we were at war? That protesters were "emboldening the enemy" while "troops were in harm's way?"
We're still at war, right?
So what happened to all that? Because I distinctly remember hearing it over and over again during Bush's terms in office.
Does that only count if it's a republican in office?
| 109 |
HappyWarrior Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:27:26pm |
re: #108 Sigma_x
Here's what I would LOVE those of you who can't stand Obama to defend, even half-heartedly -
What happened to, when Bush was President, it was tantamount to treason to bash the President while we were at war? That protesters were "emboldening the enemy" while "troops were in harm's way?"
We're still at war, right?
So what happened to all that? Because I distinctly remember hearing it over and over again during Bush's terms in office.
Does that only count if it's a republican in office?
I would love to know the answer to this too. It's such hypocritical bs.
| 111 |
carefulnow Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:27:53pm |
re: #104 WindUpBird
How fun! I just got a new computer and my lilac point siamese can't figure out where to sit anymore. That's not it exactly; she has tried to sit in front of the monitor, but that doesn't really work for me and she's tried to sit on top of the CPU, but it's not quite roomy enough for her.
| 113 |
ryannon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:28:34pm |
re: #106 Shiplord Kirel
Just heard that the Qatari shoe-smoker whose bad joke set off an alert the other day has been "re-assigned" by his own government. A State Department spokesman said, "We welcome that."
I'd welcome the news that he's been "re-assigned" to Quatar as an inspector of camel rectums.
| 114 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:28:55pm |
re: #108 Sigma_x
Here's what I would LOVE those of you who can't stand Obama to defend, even half-heartedly -
What happened to, when Bush was President, it was tantamount to treason to bash the President while we were at war? That protesters were "emboldening the enemy" while "troops were in harm's way?"
We're still at war, right?
So what happened to all that? Because I distinctly remember hearing it over and over again during Bush's terms in office.
Does that only count if it's a republican in office?
It's different when the President is the one committing the treason. Also, Bush wasn't Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Presidency.
| 115 |
Stanghazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:30:27pm |
re: #108 Sigma_x
Cue the "But Code Pink was so powerful" response.
| 116 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:30:49pm |
re: #110 Sigma_x
Crickets.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that "those of you who can't stand Obama" isn't how the vast majority of us here at LGF self-identify.
But you go right ahead chirping to yourself...
| 117 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:30:51pm |
re: #114 drcordell
It's different when the President is the one committing the treason. Also, Bush wasn't Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Presidency.
Awwwwww shit - no he didn't!
How, exactly, is he committing treason, sir?
| 118 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:30:51pm |
If only POTUS could smack down Ahmadinejad as neatly as he did Sarah Palin when the subject of nukes comes up.
Guess you have to pick your targets carefully.....
| 119 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:31:18pm |
"When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat?"
-Chuck Palahniuk
| 121 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:31:48pm |
re: #105 Obdicut
Ronald Reagan was a commie who wanted us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 1/3rd, remember. He had a fool's vision of a world free from atomic weapons.
That branch-chewing elven hippie! Why, I bet he played hackeysack in the oval office! :D
| 122 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:32:33pm |
re: #120 Stanley Sea
I am guessing so. Though it's hard to tell.
| 123 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:32:37pm |
re: #119 WindUpBird
"When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat?"
-Chuck Palahniuk
That dude writes some weird shizniggity...
| 124 |
Varek Raith Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:32:48pm |
re: #118 tradewind
If only POTUS could smack down Ahmadinejad as neatly as he did Sarah Palin when the subject of nukes comes up.
Guess you have to pick your targets carefully...
A rhetorical smackdown of Iran would do what, exactly? Make us feel better?
| 125 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:33:02pm |
re: #108 Sigma_x
Didn't seem to make a lot of difference then, did it......
Chimpy McHitler didn't exactly get the respect-POTUS treatment. I believe war criminal was the prevailing democrat meme....
| 126 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:33:54pm |
re: #118 tradewind
If only POTUS could smack down Ahmadinejad as neatly as he did Sarah Palin when the subject of nukes comes up.
Guess you have to pick your targets carefully...
?
You're not serious, are you?
Maybe he should've done something more Reagan-esque.
Like sell arms to the Iranian regime under-the-table in order to funnel the money to Code Pink or something?
(It's the DEPTH of the stupidity that frightens me.)
| 127 |
webevintage Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:34:04pm |
re: #114 drcordell
It's different when the President is the one committing the treason. Also, Bush wasn't Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Presidency.
I'm assuming someone forgot their sarc tag?
;-)
| 128 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:34:49pm |
re: #124 Varek Raith
Some stern rhetoric would be a start, preferably followed by those Sternly Worded Sanctions he's so fond of threatening.
Again, he's gone for the softer target.
Encouraging, and helpful.
| 129 |
What, me worry? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:35:14pm |
re: #38 Joo-LiZ
That one's going to my mother. We share these kind of stories back and forth. Thanks :)
| 130 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:35:21pm |
Palin's use of the pronunciation "noo-kwew-luhr" for "nuclear" is fully deliberate, by the way.
It links her to a long line of morons of whom her moron fans approve, the lasted being Howdy-Dubya.
It makes morons feel more comfortable when their moron representatives don't sound smarter than they do.
For today's GOP, "dumb" is a highly prized résumé qualification.
| 131 |
webevintage Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:35:29pm |
re: #121 WindUpBird
That branch-chewing elven hippie! Why, I bet he played hackeysack in the oval office! :D
While only eating RED commie Jelly Beans...
| 132 |
Varek Raith Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:35:32pm |
re: #128 tradewind
Some stern rhetoric would be a start, preferably followed by those Sternly Worded Sanctions he's so fond of threatening.
Again, he's gone for the softer target.
Encouraging, and helpful.
Sanctions would be meaningless without China and Russia. How would you get them aboard?
| 133 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:35:58pm |
re: #126 Sigma_x
Yeah.... Code Pink= freedom fighters in Central America.
I did not know that.
| 134 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:36:53pm |
re: #128 tradewind
Some stern rhetoric would be a start, preferably followed by those Sternly Worded Sanctions he's so fond of threatening.
Again, he's gone for the softer target.
Encouraging, and helpful.
Maybe if he just copied the stern rhetoric Bush used, that would help?
Because we all saw how that solved the problem.
| 135 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:36:54pm |
re: #125 tradewind
Bush got a lot of respect following 9-11, he squandered it. I don't remember national politicians grand-standing calling him a fascist or socialist or saying he's the most radical president of our times and claiming he hates america.
| 136 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:37:05pm |
Forget it - it's like trying to discuss particle physics with a poodle.
| 137 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:37:49pm |
| 138 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:38:43pm |
re: #118 tradewind
If only POTUS could smack down Ahmadinejad as neatly as he did Sarah Palin when the subject of nukes comes up.
Guess you have to pick your targets carefully...
You mean, for example, if Obama had specifically called out Iran as being one of the nations NOT covered by his nuclear policy changes?
That kind of smack-down?
Yeah, that would have been nice... oh wait.
| 139 |
Stanghazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:38:53pm |
re: #133 tradewind
Yeah... Code Pink= freedom fighters in Central America.
I did not know that.
Freedom Fighters... It's been a long time since I've heard that one.
| 140 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:38:53pm |
re: #136 Sigma_x
Forget it - it's like trying to discuss particle physics with a poodle.
Way to keep it erudite. Very suave of you.
*eyeroll*
| 141 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:39:45pm |
re: #130 Cato the Elder
She's just carrying on a tradition started by Jimmy Carter, Cato. Also,
The Merriam-Webster dictionary entry lists both pronunciations, and notes that the -kyə-lər pronunciation is "in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president".
| 142 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:40:52pm |
Maybe he should've shown the Iranian regime the we we showed France when they wouldn't back us on going into Iraq.
You know, when they changed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" in the Capital Cafeteria.
THAT kind of tough talk?
| 143 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:43:06pm |
re: #141 tradewind
She's just carrying on a tradition started by Jimmy Carter, Cato. Also,
The Merriam-Webster dictionary entry lists both pronunciations, and notes that the -kyə-lər pronunciation is "in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president".
Uh, no. This is what my copy of Merriam Webster says about the ignorant "nucular" pronunciation:
USAGE A variant pronunciation, %P%ˈn(y)oōkyələr%P%, has been used by many, but is widely regarded as unacceptable.
| 144 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:43:07pm |
re: #141 tradewind
She's just carrying on a tradition started by Jimmy Carter, Cato. Also,
The Merriam-Webster dictionary entry lists both pronunciations, and notes that the -kyə-lər pronunciation is "in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president".
Noah Webster is an ass, as are those who quote his dictionaries.
Look up their definition of "educated" and I'll bet it says "anyone who buys this dictionary".
Makes you feel smart, doesn't it?
| 145 |
HappyWarrior Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:44:03pm |
re: #142 Sigma_x
Maybe he should've shown the Iranian regime the we we showed France when they wouldn't back us on going into Iraq.
You know, when they changed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" in the Capital Cafeteria.
THAT kind of tough talk?
What Persian Rugs become Freedom rugs :D. What's funny is that one of the Congressmen who proposed the Freedom fries was a strong supporter of Ron Paul and is now an opponent of the war. I've been in the Congressional Cafeteria. The freedom fries weren't bad. Not 5 Guys good but pretty good for a cafeteria.
| 146 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:44:04pm |
Best book about dictionary's ever.
[Link: www.amazon.com...]
| 147 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:44:14pm |
re: #123 Aceofwhat?
That dude writes some weird shizniggity...
he does, he's very Portland :D Palahniuk, William Gibson, and Iain Banks are my favorite authors. (which reminds me I need to read more oof)
| 148 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:44:48pm |
re: #138 Charles
No. I meant that since Sarah Palin has nothing to do with our nuclear policy, a really intelligent use of his bully pulpit would not include demonstrating his ' smackdown ' smarts with an unelected woman.
I would much prefer his rapier rhetoric be directed at Iran followed by action to urge the UN's enacting some sanctions. Shouldn't be hard to do, really, now that he has restored respect for America among the nations of the world.....
| 149 |
lgffan Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:45:01pm |
It took me three looks at that to figure out what was wrong. Amazing what the brain does to make corrections. I know for a fact we can discern thoughts even though misspellings persist!
| 150 |
Shiplord Kirel Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:45:04pm |
re: #130 Cato the Elder
Palin's use of the pronunciation "noo-kwew-luhr" for "nuclear" is fully deliberate, by the way.
It links her to a long line of morons of whom her moron fans approve, the lasted being Howdy-Dubya.
It makes morons feel more comfortable when their moron representatives don't sound smarter than they do.
For today's GOP, "dumb" is a highly prized résumé qualification.
I got into a heated discussion about global warming with a denialist radio host a while back. He told me not to use terms like "parts per million" because "that would go right over the average listener's head."
I said, "Oh yeah? Suppose I owe this average listener a million bucks and offer to settle the debt for three hundred and fifty. Will he understand the scale then?"
He mumbled something about money being different and went on with a non-stop rant.
| 152 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:46:01pm |
re: #148 tradewind
No. I meant that since Sarah Palin has nothing to do with our nuclear policy, a really intelligent use of his bully pulpit would not include demonstrating his ' smackdown ' smarts with an unelected woman.
I would much prefer his rapier rhetoric be directed at Iran followed by action to urge the UN's enacting some sanctions. Shouldn't be hard to do, really, now that he has restored respect for America among the nations of the world...
Instead of directing his "rapier rhetoric" against Iran, he explicitly threatened them with a nuclear attack if they dare to act against America.
Guess that wasn't good enough for you.
| 153 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:46:13pm |
re: #150 Shiplord Kirel
I got into a heated discussion about global warming with a denialist radio host a while back. He told me not to use terms like "parts per million" because "that would go right over the average listener's head."
I said, "Oh yeah? Suppose I owe this average listener a million bucks and offer to settle the debt for three hundred and fifty. Will he understand the scale then?"
He mumbled something about money being different and went on with a non-stop rant.
That's hysterical.
| 154 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:46:33pm |
re: #148 tradewind
Considering he was asked a direct question by george snuffalupugus he responded.
| 155 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:47:11pm |
re: #111 carefulnow
How fun! I just got a new computer and my lilac point siamese can't figure out where to sit anymore. That's not it exactly; she has tried to sit in front of the monitor, but that doesn't really work for me and she's tried to sit on top of the CPU, but it's not quite roomy enough for her.
haha when I finally swapped out my aging 21" CRT for a LCD, our sphynx tried to jump up on top of the LCD, thinking, like be big clunky viewsonic, there was a whole big box for him to sit on. Of course he just hopped onto...nothing, then he just tumbled down behind the desk. Ayiee!
| 156 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:47:16pm |
re: #144 Cato the Elder
Got it. From now on, no more Webster's when I want dictionary help , it's Cato's (extremely) Unabridged.
:)
| 157 |
m0nkeyb0y Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:47:54pm |
re: #108 Sigma_x
Especially since those same people were busy shouting "traitor" at those of us who looked befuddled and asked "Iraq?!!)
| 159 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:48:19pm |
re: #152 Charles
and for it he was called a "cowboy" by Ahmedinejad (or however you spell the asshats name). I eagerly await hearing how his saber-rattling against Iran is a bad thing and for the Cheney's to defend Ahmedinejad. THEN we'd reach the wingularity.
| 161 |
Varek Raith Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:50:05pm |
Yep, we did such a great job preventing North Korea from detonation two nuclear devices. Yep.
Reality is a tad bit more complicated than partisan politicians would like it to be.
;)
| 162 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:50:05pm |
re: #149 lgffan
It took me three looks at that to figure out what was wrong. Amazing what the brain does to make corrections. I know for a fact we can discern thoughts even though misspellings persist!
Teh polbrem coems wehn msispellnigs cioncide wtih flase ligoc! Boom!
| 163 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:50:28pm |
| 164 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:51:10pm |
re: #159 Dreggas
Wait till Obama appoints whoever he's gonna appoint to the Supreme Court. You ain't never had such fun. (Actually, the fun's already started, and he just announced this morning that he's retiring....)
| 165 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:51:10pm |
re: #160 carefulnow
I can't take credit for that. It was John Cole at balloon-juice who came up with that one, or one of his co-bloggers.
| 166 |
Varek Raith Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:51:20pm |
re: #163 Dreggas
Jindal warns convention attendees to stay away from bourbon street
DESTROYING THE LOCAL ECONOMY IN THE PROCESS!11!!
| 167 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:51:22pm |
The Iranian nuke question is probably moot, since Israel will most likely strike at the facilities if we continue to do nothing.
There's not a winning scenario in sight.
| 168 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:51:53pm |
re: #164 Sigma_x
I saw something on TPM that healthcare may somehow be the new litmus test for judges.
| 170 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:52:36pm |
re: #155 WindUpBird
haha when I finally swapped out my aging 21" CRT for a LCD, our sphynx tried to jump up on top of the LCD, thinking, like be big clunky viewsonic, there was a whole big box for him to sit on. Of course he just hopped onto...nothing, then he just tumbled down behind the desk. Ayiee!
Well if you have a sphynx you should damn well be kind enough to keep the old CRT running somewhere in the room, just for him. Those poor cats need all the help they can get staying warm.
| 171 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:53:42pm |
re: #158 tradewind
They're disarming as we speak.
:)
Come on, dude. I didn't vote for Obama but he's been as good as i could have hoped for. I'd trade an Obama victory in '12 for republican control of Congress without the slightest hesitation.
I'm not saying i agree with him on everything, but I think the START thing is just peachy. I was worried it would make us look weaker for about five minutes, then i read the particulars. We reserve the right to do plenty of things...
| 172 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:53:51pm |
re: #163 Dreggas
I love NoLa, lived there for three years, but staying away from Bourton St. at night is pretty sound advice for anyone ( but especially an obvious convention-goer) who wants to retain his wallet or is mugging-averse.
| 173 |
Stanghazi Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:53:51pm |
re: #166 Varek Raith
DESTROYING THE LOCAL ECONOMY IN THE PROCESS!11!!
Actually kind of funny joke. He was referring to the RNC staffers.
| 174 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:53:54pm |
re: #168 Dreggas
I saw something on TPM that healthcare may somehow be the new litmus test for judges.
So the litmus test is going to be "do you support the commerce clause of the Constitution being used to regulate interstate trade"?
| 175 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:55:32pm |
re: #164 Sigma_x
I want him to appoint Laura Murphy.
Both because I think she's an amazing defender of civil liberties, and because the attacks on her would be very revealing.
| 176 |
MrSilverDragon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:55:49pm |
re: #155 WindUpBird
haha when I finally swapped out my aging 21" CRT for a LCD, our sphynx tried to jump up on top of the LCD, thinking, like be big clunky viewsonic, there was a whole big box for him to sit on. Of course he just hopped onto...nothing, then he just tumbled down behind the desk. Ayiee!
After having to get 10 stitches on my arm because my cat liked to sleep on the monitor and fell off and tried to catch herself by grabbing onto my arm with her claws, the cat isn't allowed on the monitor. I'm pretty sure the swearing tirade which came out of my mouth during the event scared her from ever doing so again.
| 177 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:56:05pm |
I posted this yesterday, but I feel I just have to repost it. There's got to be something said when Republicans vote against the stimulus bill, extending unemployment benefits, the jobs bill, the health care bill,... all that coupled with the news yesterday that 47% of Americans won't pay Federal Income Tax this year because they didn't make enough money, or through tax credits, or Obama's tax policies; AND YET:
The 10 Poorest States in the US
1) Mississippi--Voted McCain
2) West Virginia--Voted McCain
3) Arkansas--Voted McCain
4) Kentucky--Voted McCain
5) Alabama--Voted McCain
6) Oklahoma--Voted McCain
7) New Mexico--Voted Obama
8) Tennessee--Voted McCain
9) Montana--Voted McCain
10) Louisiana--Voted McCain
| 178 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:56:17pm |
re: #170 Cato the Elder
Well if you have a sphynx you should damn well be kind enough to keep the old CRT running somewhere in the room, just for him. Those poor cats need all the help they can get staying warm.
Oh, he's got a ton of warm stuff to loaf on, my computer room/studio looks like a nerd pawn shop, just wires and gear and creaky old PCs everywhere. :D Right now he's curled up behind my 17" laptop, which ejects all the heat from the motherboard behind the screen where the ports are. He also digs this desk lamp I have that I aim to the side for some indirect light, and he'll just hang out underneath it.
| 179 |
blueraven Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:57:12pm |
re: #158 tradewind
They're disarming as we speak.
:)
And just what did all the tough talk coming from the Bush administration accomplish? What difference did they make in 8 years in Iran and Korea? You act like all this just started over the last year.
I guess more Axis of Evil talk would help. /
| 180 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:57:23pm |
re: #175 Obdicut
I want him to appoint Laura Murphy.
Both because I think she's an amazing defender of civil liberties, and because the attacks on her would be very revealing.
You know who I hope he appoints? Mario Coumo.
| 181 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:57:29pm |
re: #177 Sigma_x
thanks. sorta kills the idea that 'republicans have it in for poor people', doesn't it...
| 182 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:57:42pm |
re: #176 MrSilverDragon
After having to get 10 stitches on my arm because my cat liked to sleep on the monitor and fell off and tried to catch herself by grabbing onto my arm with her claws, the cat isn't allowed on the monitor. I'm pretty sure the swearing tirade which came out of my mouth during the event scared her from ever doing so again.
Oh God, stitches! That's brutal. o_o I've had some wicked cat scratches (the worst ones are always when the cat is falling, yep) but nothing that required serious treatment.
| 183 |
Ericus58 Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:58:17pm |
re: #154 Dreggas
Considering he was asked a direct question by george snuffalupugus he responded.
Fair enough. However, he should have deferred on directly responding about her (being a private citizen) and focused on his policy engagements and initiatives - take the higher approach, stay on message.
Why give his opponents more ammo by hoisting Palin on a petard - what does it buy him?
I remember a previous time when he directly commented on an issue between a LEO and his professor friend... didn't end quite well.
| 184 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:58:18pm |
re: #181 Aceofwhat?
thanks. sorta kills the idea that 'republicans have it in for poor people', doesn't it...
No. It gives credence to the fact that republicans have somehow managed to con them into voting against their own interests.
| 185 |
avanti Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:58:58pm |
DOW hit 11.000 a few minutes ago. If this economy improvement keeps up, the Commie Obama will get reelected./ BTW, it's pulling back a few points at the end.
| 186 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:59:23pm |
re: #171 Aceofwhat?
I don't think we have been tested in any serious way in order for Obama to have a foreign policy grade as yet. Thank heavens. I certainly wish him well.... he is in charge of our defense. Another four years for him seems like a given, which doesn't really bother me that much. Congress is another question.
Seriously, was there an option to not reserve the right to do 'plenty of things '?
That would have been a direct violation of his oath of office.
I don't think he has done anything near the job of restoring respect for this nation that he thinks he has, and I believe we are perceived as weaker, whether or not we are. He has largely been ignored when he has requested cooperation from other nations.
| 187 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 12:59:40pm |
re: #184 Sigma_x
No. It gives credence to the fact that republicans have somehow managed to con them into voting against their own interests.
Oh, so they're all poor idiots. Good thing you're not an elitist. Because it's certainly up to you to define what their interests should be.
sheesh.
| 188 |
Varek Raith Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:00:16pm |
re: #186 tradewind
I thought we didn't care what other nations though of us???
| 189 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:00:22pm |
re: #179 blueraven
It is rather ironic that we invaded the one country in the so-called "axis of evil" that didn't have WMD's while the other two countries ramped up their programs to create nukes.
| 191 |
ryannon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:00:43pm |
| 192 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:00:52pm |
re: #181 Aceofwhat?
thanks. sorta kills the idea that 'republicans have it in for poor people', doesn't it...
Well, they do, that's why they need to push the social-con thing, so people get distracted by the talk of gay people marryin' and other social hot-button issues that provoke an emotional response. Not surprisingly, many of those McCain voting states also banned gay marriage in 2004. If you're trying to get poor people to vote against their best interests you need to freak them out. Obama's a communist, gays'll eat your children, over and over and over.
| 193 |
Varek Raith Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:01:28pm |
| 194 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:01:58pm |
re: #188 Varek Raith
Evidently ' we ' did, since that was one of the principle reasons Obama cited during the campaign in support of his election.
| 195 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:02:06pm |
re: #184 Sigma_x
You should say 'economic interests', to avoid being patronizing. The interests of many of those, for whom, for example, breaking down the barrier between church and state is important, the GOP is representing their interests.
| 196 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:02:09pm |
re: #187 Aceofwhat?
Oh, so they're all poor idiots. Good thing you're not an elitist. Because it's certainly up to you to define what their interests should be.
sheesh.
Making health care more accessible to poor people who have no health care whatsoever? That is in poor peoples' best interests. 8-)
| 198 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:02:57pm |
re: #192 WindUpBird
Well, they do, that's why they need to push the social-con thing, so people get distracted by the talk of gay people marryin' and other social hot-button issues that provoke an emotional response. Not surprisingly, many of those McCain voting states also banned gay marriage in 2004. If you're trying to get poor people to vote against their best interests you need to freak them out. Obama's a communist, gays'll eat your children, over and over and over.
Methinks you underestimate how little the politics of income redistribution resonates in even some of the "poorer" areas of the country, to their credit. Not everyone who lives under the median income thinks they deserve a share of someone else's.
| 199 |
MrSilverDragon Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:03:26pm |
re: #182 WindUpBird
Oh God, stitches! That's brutal. o_o I've had some wicked cat scratches (the worst ones are always when the cat is falling, yep) but nothing that required serious treatment.
I'm quite vigilant on keeping her claws trimmed, now. So, there is a small positive that came out of it.
| 200 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:03:27pm |
re: #195 Obdicut
You should say 'economic interests', to avoid being patronizing. The interests of many of those, for whom, for example, breaking down the barrier between church and state is important, the GOP is representing their interests.
You're totally right, I should have said "economic interests" instead of just interest. I stand corrected. Good point.
| 201 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:03:49pm |
re: #181 Aceofwhat?
thanks. sorta kills the idea that 'republicans have it in for poor people', doesn't it...
Not really. It just proves that poor people are oftentimes too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.
| 203 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:05:26pm |
re: #197 carefulnow
California is not as "blue" as we seem to appear. I lived in Orange county (about half an hour from L.A. if there's no traffic) and it's a hotbed for so-cons and the religious right. Same goes for the inland and central parts of the state. Those supporting prop 8 were able to push their side out more than the opponents.
| 204 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:05:31pm |
re: #196 WindUpBird
Making health care more accessible to poor people who have no health care whatsoever? That is in poor peoples' best interests. 8-)
Where i differ from you and Sigma X is that i don't presume to know what someone else's best interests are until i've at least heard their side of the story.
Did you ever think that a younger individual with a relatively low income might hate being forced to purchase more health care than they believe they need?
| 205 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:05:48pm |
re: #195 Obdicut
You should say 'economic interests', to avoid being patronizing. The interests of many of those, for whom, for example, breaking down the barrier between church and state is important, the GOP is representing their interests.
That is true. Some people's interests are served by social conservative initiatives. If you want more dominionist policies, if you're truly afraid of queers, or you want textbooks to diminish the achievements of minorities, that's an interest!
There's a guy I know, he literally has one issue he cares about, gun rights. That's his only issue. We got into an argument about various policies, and he just said right out that he votes for whoever the NRA tells him to vote, that he considers it the only important issue. I could not believe it. He's sort of a bay area conservative, he's sort of mellow and moderate, but I was just astonished that he just could not care less about other policy.
| 206 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:06:02pm |
re: #104 WindUpBird
I mow have two devon rexes which are like tiny miniature devil cats, and they make my sphynx look huge. They're like scheming little monkeys, they get into EVERYTHING
Think of it as a very thorough inspection by your oversight committee...
:)
| 207 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:06:10pm |
re: #201 drcordell
Not really. It just proves that poor people are oftentimes too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.
Thank you for stating what i like the least about liberals. And you were pithy, too. Bonus.
| 208 |
Ericus58 Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:07:23pm |
re: #201 drcordell
Not really. It just proves that poor people are oftentimes too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.
Interesting Elitist statement there.... are you talking about poor "republican" folks or the poor "democratic" folks.....
| 209 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:07:31pm |
re: #198 Aceofwhat?
or they're told that the government is gonna take their money and give it to someone else (not realizing it will probably help them as well) and they already feel they pay enough. I grew up in a relatively low income area, people needed welfare assistance and jobs didn't pay well. THey'd complain about government taking their money while still needing government assistance to feed their families.
| 210 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:07:32pm |
re: #198 Aceofwhat?
Methinks you underestimate how little the politics of income redistribution resonates in even some of the "poorer" areas of the country, to their credit. Not everyone who lives under the median income thinks they deserve a share of someone else's.
Is health care a "share" of someone else's income? How about properly funded schools? How about the distribution of law enforcement resources? Poor people whose kids are burdened with schools rotting and dangerously undermaintained, with large class sizes and no resources, are they looking around and going, "yep, this is what we deserve. Wouldn't want to fix this! We deserve rotting schools!"
| 211 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:07:32pm |
re: #202 Sigma_x
Zing!
good. i'll sign you up as agreeing with that prejudicial, narrow-minded viewpoint. noted.
| 212 |
prairiefire Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:07:34pm |
re: #104 WindUpBird
When windy asked you if your cat crate had arrived, or something like that, i thought it was code.
He meant these!:[Link: www.devonrexcats.com...]
| 213 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:08:11pm |
re: #198 Aceofwhat?
Methinks you underestimate how little the politics of income redistribution resonates in even some of the "poorer" areas of the country, to their credit. Not everyone who lives under the median income thinks they deserve a share of someone else's.
I don't think you're getting it. If you're poor enough to not pay any Federal Income tax you are already getting a share of someone else's. You're getting a military, paved roads, infrastructure, mail delivery, and so many other benefits all U.S. citizens receive. And all of those things are paid for by income taxes they aren't paying. Yet these idiots somehow manage to "hate" the Federal government all the same. Despite the fact that they are net beneficiaries.
| 214 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:08:17pm |
re: #198 Aceofwhat?
I wish that made sense to me. One of the great gaping differences between what i feel and the people you describe.
If i hear about redistribution - i don't think about rich peoples money entering my personal pocket, i hear it going into a local school or hospital which is for everybody.
And besides, the poorest are getting tax cuts, which means they can keep more of their own money, it's not that of some rich fellah entering their jeans pocket.
| 215 |
HappyWarrior Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:08:34pm |
What's weird to me is that some of the most reddest states now gave some of the highest percentage of votes to the actual Socialist Eugene Debs in the early 1900's. Just an observation.
| 216 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:08:53pm |
re: #210 WindUpBird
Is health care a "share" of someone else's income? How about properly funded schools? How about the distribution of law enforcement resources? Poor people whose kids are burdened with schools rotting and dangerously undermaintained, with large class sizes and no resources, are they looking around and going, "yep, this is what we deserve. Wouldn't want to fix this! We deserve rotting schools!"
Good. I'll sign you up as a fan of charter schools and voucher programs. I don't think we should lock kids in failing schools either. Most Dems disagree, however...
| 217 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:09:07pm |
re: #212 prairiefire
haha yeah, not code! :D
| 218 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:09:38pm |
re: #204 Aceofwhat?
Did you ever think that a younger individual with a relatively low income might hate being forced to purchase more health care than they believe they need?
Did you ever think that the rest of society would get sick of paying for the catastrophic illness of someone who "believed" they didn't need health insurance? Young people will always think that they are invincible. That doesn't mean I should have to pay for their idiocy in the form of MY increased health care costs.
| 219 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:10:10pm |
re: #204 Aceofwhat?
Where i differ from you and Sigma X is that i don't presume to know what someone else's best interests are until i've at least heard their side of the story.
Did you ever think that a younger individual with a relatively low income might hate being forced to purchase more health care than they believe they need?
Okay. That's a valid point, about the health care (the 1st one I've heard you ever ATTEMPT to make.)
But what about Republicans voting against the stimulus bill, the jobs bill, extending unemployment benefits, and so on and so forth? How on earth do you defend that? 'Cause I would seriously love to hear you try.
| 220 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:10:12pm |
re: #214 wozzablog
I wish that made sense to me. One of the great gaping differences between what i feel and the people you describe.
If i hear about redistribution - i don't think about rich peoples money entering my personal pocket, i hear it going into a local school or hospital which is for everybody.
And besides, the poorest are getting tax cuts, which means they can keep more of their own money, it's not that of some rich fellah entering their jeans pocket.
That's fine. That's what you feel. There are elitists here who presume to understand that if the "poor" don't agree with them, they must be "dumb".
Disgusting.
| 221 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:10:27pm |
re: #155 WindUpBird
haha when I finally swapped out my aging 21" CRT for a LCD, our sphynx tried to jump up on top of the LCD, thinking, like be big clunky viewsonic, there was a whole big box for him to sit on. Of course he just hopped onto...nothing, then he just tumbled down behind the desk. Ayiee!
But we all know you didn't see that happen since it would be undignified for a cat overlord to make such a hasty mistake...
| 222 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:11:15pm |
re: #218 drcordell
Did you ever think that the rest of society would get sick of paying for the catastrophic illness of someone who "believed" they didn't need health insurance? Young people will always think that they are invincible. That doesn't mean I should have to pay for their idiocy in the form of MY increased health care costs.
I said 'more than they need', not 'none'. Thank you for responding to something i never wrote. I have said repeatedly that everyone should be mandated to carry catastrophic coverage.
What else are you going to make up that i didn't say?
| 223 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:11:19pm |
re: #207 Aceofwhat?
Thank God for these liberals who tenderly look out for the fly-over country unwashed who in ignorance cast their misguided votes for Republicans. We'd never be able to feed ourselves without their guidance.
| 224 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:11:37pm |
re: #214 wozzablog
I wish that made sense to me. One of the great gaping differences between what i feel and the people you describe.
If i hear about redistribution - i don't think about rich peoples money entering my personal pocket, i hear it going into a local school or hospital which is for everybody.
And besides, the poorest are getting tax cuts, which means they can keep more of their own money, it's not that of some rich fellah entering their jeans pocket.
Libraries are income redistribution.
Fire departments are income redistribution.
Bridges.
Police.
Schools. Parks.
All these things take money, and they redistribute it. They take hard earned money by humans in the US, and the redistribute that money to apply it to a landscaper maintaining a park, or a teacher's salary, or traffic infrastructure.
| 225 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:12:24pm |
re: #219 Sigma_x
Okay. That's a valid point, about the health care (the 1st one I've heard you ever ATTEMPT to make.)
But what about Republicans voting against the stimulus bill, the jobs bill, extending unemployment benefits, and so on and so forth? How on earth do you defend that? 'Cause I would seriously love to hear you try.
nononono. let's go back to where you think the poor are too dumb to vote in their own self-interest. please, go on. you know, because I'm the one who doesn't care about the poor.
| 226 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:12:31pm |
re: #220 Aceofwhat?
It's not stupidity - it's conditioning.
Centuries of conditioning going back to the boss classes busting unions in the 1800's.
| 227 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:12:33pm |
re: #224 WindUpBird
Libraries are income redistribution.
Fire departments are income redistribution.
Bridges.
Police.
Schools. Parks.All these things take money, and they redistribute it. They take hard earned money by humans in the US, and the redistribute that money to apply it to a landscaper maintaining a park, or a teacher's salary, or traffic infrastructure.
SOCIALISM!!111!!!!
/// (atomic sarc)
| 228 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:13:33pm |
re: #220 Aceofwhat?
That's fine. That's what you feel. There are elitists here who presume to understand that if the "poor" don't agree with them, they must be "dumb".
Disgusting.
Apparently being intelligent enough to discern between the truth and lies is "elitist" these days.
I fully reserve the right to call someone an idiot when they lack health insurance, yet riot in the streets against the man who is trying to help them attain it. Especially considering it is my money that will eventually pay for the healthcare they will receive for free when they go into the ER and can't afford to pay.
| 229 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:14:05pm |
re: #224 WindUpBird
Libraries are income redistribution.
wash your mouth out.
Glen Beck uses libraries, and he would never do such a thing if he knew that, and he would know that, so therefore it can't be true.
| 230 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:14:06pm |
re: #222 Aceofwhat?
I said 'more than they need', not 'none'. Thank you for responding to something i never wrote. I have said repeatedly that everyone should be mandated to carry catastrophic coverage.
What else are you going to make up that i didn't say?
A mandate for individual health insurance coverage is unconstitutional. You don't know that?
| 231 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:14:08pm |
re: #224 WindUpBird
Libraries are income redistribution.
Fire departments are income redistribution.
Bridges.
Police.
Schools. Parks.All these things take money, and they redistribute it. They take hard earned money by humans in the US, and the redistribute that money to apply it to a landscaper maintaining a park, or a teacher's salary, or traffic infrastructure.
You ever hear me say there should be none? Have some italian dressing with your straw, friend. This is a discussion about degrees, not extremes. And i don't think that poor people are too stupid en masse to figure out what their "self interests" are.
| 232 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:14:08pm |
re: #226 wozzablog
It's not stupidity - it's conditioning.
Centuries of conditioning going back to the boss classes busting unions in the 1800's.
Yeah, I knew you wouldn't be able to defend it. You and tradewind, all you do is come out with this talking point bullshit about elitism and liberals this and liberals that. But when called upon to back it up with reasoned debate BEYOND the talking points you're spoon fed by the fine folks at FOX, all we get are
[Link: www.naturesongs.com...]
| 233 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:14:21pm |
re: #204 Aceofwhat?
Where i differ from you and Sigma X is that i don't presume to know what someone else's best interests are until i've at least heard their side of the story.
Did you ever think that a younger individual with a relatively low income might hate being forced to purchase more health care than they believe they need?
Well, when you're talking about the very mechanics of paying into a risk pool so that health care is solvent, we're no longer talking about best interests. We're talking about making the system solvent. Without young people who are healthy paying into the pool, the system doesn't work. If only people with chronic illnesses paying into the system, the system breaks. Just like if only maniac bad drivers and 80 year olds bought car insurance, car insurance would be exorbitant.
So yeah, they might hate that. And unfortuantely, it's what needs to happen for the system to work. That's risk distribution. That's what you do in a society, you distrubute resources and you distribute risk.
| 235 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:16:13pm |
re: #232 Sigma_x
hey, what ever works for you to make you feel better about how you feel about me - s'all good..........
*soaking it up*
| 236 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:16:29pm |
re: #228 drcordell
Apparently being intelligent enough to discern between the truth and lies is "elitist" these days.
I fully reserve the right to call someone an idiot when they lack health insurance, yet riot in the streets against the man who is trying to help them attain it. Especially considering it is my money that will eventually pay for the healthcare they will receive for free when they go into the ER and can't afford to pay.
Ok. So when you can't understand why someone is acting in a certain manner, you presume that there can't be a valid reason...you being omniscient and all...so they must be an idiot.
I generally (not always, because i fail to live up to my own standards all too often) try to understand exactly why someone believes the way that they do before i make such a strong judgment.
I'm happy to be different from you in that manner.
| 238 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:17:26pm |
re: #231 Aceofwhat?
You ever hear me say there should be none? Have some italian dressing with your straw, friend. This is a discussion about degrees, not extremes. And i don't think that poor people are too stupid en masse to figure out what their "self interests" are.
When someone cares more about a gay person's contract with their partner than issues that affect them directly, that that issue more than others (that directly affect them) drives their turnout, drives their voting decisions?
I call that stupid. Brain-dead, blindingly stupid. :)
| 239 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:18:13pm |
re: #233 WindUpBird
Well, when you're talking about the very mechanics of paying into a risk pool so that health care is solvent, we're no longer talking about best interests. We're talking about making the system solvent. Without young people who are healthy paying into the pool, the system doesn't work. If only people with chronic illnesses paying into the system, the system breaks. Just like if only maniac bad drivers and 80 year olds bought car insurance, car insurance would be exorbitant.
So yeah, they might hate that. And unfortuantely, it's what needs to happen for the system to work. That's risk distribution. That's what you do in a society, you distrubute resources and you distribute risk.
oh...so there are valid reasons why someone might vote against what would otherwise appear to be there self-interests? huh. don't tell Drcordell or SigmaX. If the poor aren't too stupid to figure things out, their philosophy is going to crumble...
| 240 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:19:11pm |
re: #238 WindUpBird
When someone cares more about a gay person's contract with their partner than issues that affect them directly, that that issue more than others (that directly affect them) drives their turnout, drives their voting decisions?
I call that stupid. Brain-dead, blindingly stupid. :)
That's fine. That's why those people voted for McCain, then? You know this because...why?
| 241 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:19:40pm |
I'm still waiting on sombody to make sense out of Republicans voting against the stimulus bill, the jobs bill, extending unemployment benefits, etc etc.
| 242 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:19:48pm |
re: #231 Aceofwhat?
You ever hear me say there should be none? Have some italian dressing with your straw, friend. This is a discussion about degrees, not extremes. And i don't think that poor people are too stupid en masse to figure out what their "self interests" are.
You're using income redistribution as a negative code word. I'm merely pointing out that our entire society would not work at all, were it not for income redistribution on a massive scale.
I dislike the use of income redistribution as a negative talking point. it's been flogged into the groung by Republicans, it's been tied to all the mindless gibbering about "socialism" as it pertains to Obama's quite moderate policies, that mirror similar Republican policies in the past.
| 243 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:21:02pm |
re: #236 Aceofwhat?
Ok. So when you can't understand why someone is acting in a certain manner, you presume that there can't be a valid reason...you being omniscient and all...so they must be an idiot.
I generally (not always, because i fail to live up to my own standards all too often) try to understand exactly why someone believes the way that they do before i make such a strong judgment.
I'm happy to be different from you in that manner.
I understand completely why the poorest people in the 10 poorest states in the union tend to vote Republican. Complete and utter misinformation. They are low-information voters to begin with, and what "information" they do receive is likely to be complete and utter propaganda.
It's not like this is a huge mystery. A political party comprised exclusively of rich people, acting exclusively in the interests of those rich people could never exist. Luring in plebes to act against their own self interests is a requirement.
| 244 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:21:04pm |
re: #242 WindUpBird
You're using income redistribution as a negative code word. I'm merely pointing out that our entire society would not work at all, were it not for income redistribution on a massive scale.
I dislike the use of income redistribution as a negative talking point. it's been flogged into the groung by Republicans, it's been tied to all the mindless gibbering about "socialism" as it pertains to Obama's quite moderate policies, that mirror similar Republican policies in the past.
They just don't get it. Period. They need a basic, 4th grade civics lesson on how, like, garbage men in their neighborhood are paid, and cops, and firemen, and hospitals, etc.
| 245 |
tradewind Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:21:26pm |
re: #228 drcordell
Apparently being intelligent enough to discern between the truth and lies is "elitist" these days.
Not exactly. Believing that you are the only one ( or side) with that ability is, however.
| 246 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:21:32pm |
re: #225 Aceofwhat?
nononono. let's go back to where you think the poor are too dumb to vote in their own self-interest. please, go on. you know, because I'm the one who doesn't care about the poor.
Returning to lurker mode shortly. I don't comment much since having my ass handed to me for not knowing that Dick Cheney has another use for the word 'existential'. But I wanted to chime in about the elitist thing. I don't blame stupid people for not wanting to be called stupid. But the people that are voting against their own interests aren't doing it out of principle, they are doing it out of ignorance. For some reason people recoil at the word elitist, but I won't. These flown over masses have the same resources at their fingertips that I do, and they can easily find out details on any issue without having to be spoon fed. They choose to be dumb and then are appalled when they called out on it.
It's sad that being dumb is a virtue to so many people.
| 247 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:21:33pm |
re: #242 WindUpBird
You're using income redistribution as a negative code word. I'm merely pointing out that our entire society would not work at all, were it not for income redistribution on a massive scale.
I dislike the use of income redistribution as a negative talking point. it's been flogged into the groung by Republicans, it's been tied to all the mindless gibbering about "socialism" as it pertains to Obama's quite moderate policies, that mirror similar Republican policies in the past.
No sweat. Income redistribution is not necessarily a bad thing. Reasonable people can disagree, IMHO, about the level at which it actually does begin to do more harm than good. Well, DrCordell and SigmaX don't think that it's reasonable to disagree with them (poor people are dumb, remember), but that's a different conversation...
| 248 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:22:31pm |
re: #245 tradewind
Not exactly. Believing that you are the only one ( or side) with that ability is, however.
Right now, yes I do justifiably believe there is only one side with that ability. Find me a single GOP quotation from the backlash over his new nuclear policy that doesn't contain an outright LIE. I'll wait...
| 249 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:23:30pm |
re: #247 Aceofwhat?
No sweat. Income redistribution is not necessarily a bad thing. Reasonable people can disagree, IMHO, about the level at which it actually does begin to do more harm than good. Well, DrCordell and SigmaX don't think that it's reasonable to disagree with them (poor people are dumb, remember), but that's a different conversation...
I don't think it's reasonable to disagree with me? Really? I said even anything close to that?
News to me. You haven't come up with one valid argument or defense of any policies in a single one of your posts. I'm still waiting for you to make a point. Because all I'm hearing is the usual bullshit cries of elitist and liberal and so on and so forth.
When you're ready to make a valid point, let me know.
| 250 |
Interesting Times Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:23:34pm |
Why do people vote against their own interests?
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining. It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
| 251 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:23:46pm |
re: #245 tradewind
Not exactly. Believing that you are the only one ( or side) with that ability is, however.
The republicans ran all their elitists out of town, did you not get the memo?
*see last thousand sarah palin threads*
| 252 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:24:14pm |
re: #248 drcordell
Right now, yes I do justifiably believe there is only one side with that ability. Find me a single GOP quotation from the backlash over his new nuclear policy that doesn't contain an outright LIE. I'll wait...
You'll be waiting a long time, my friend.
| 254 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:24:27pm |
re: #243 drcordell
I understand completely why the poorest people in the 10 poorest states in the union tend to vote Republican. Complete and utter misinformation. They are low-information voters to begin with, and what "information" they do receive is likely to be complete and utter propaganda.
It's not like this is a huge mystery. A political party comprised exclusively of rich people, acting exclusively in the interests of those rich people could never exist. Luring in plebes to act against their own self interests is a requirement.
Thank you for expounding on the qualities i find the least attractive in a liberal. The combination of conspiracy theory (oooh...scary rich mind control), misunderstanding of economic strata (lots of rich people are democrats, shockingly) and absolute disdain for those of lower income results in a prejudicial outlook founded on speculation and emotion.
Fortunately, most who lean left here at LGF are not of the same ilk.
| 255 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:24:27pm |
all this talk reminds me of a joke.
A little boy is doing a report for school on how the country works. His father thinks for a second and says, "Well son, I bring in the money, I'm capitalism. Your mom manages the money, she's government. The maid is the working class, you're the people and your baby brother is the future."
"Do you understand?"
The little boy shakes his head "no" and his father tells him to think about it and they'll talk more tomorrow.
That night the little boy is woken up by his baby brother who's crapped his diaper. He goes to get the maid and finds his dad in bed with the maid. He goes to get his mom but she is sound asleep. He finally throws his hands up in the air and goes back to bed.
The next day his father asks him if he understands how things work. The boy says, "I think so, while capitalism is screwing the working class, the government is asleep, the people are confused and the future is full of shit".
| 256 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:25:02pm |
re: #240 Aceofwhat?
That's fine. That's why those people voted for McCain, then? You know this because...why?
What I'm saying is there's a bloc of Republican voters that are EXTREMELY SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE. They're the base. They're necessary to the survival of the GOP. And their big issues are social conservative hot button issues. When a majority of Republican voters do not want gays anywhere near their children, that tells you a great deal about the base and its motivations for voting the way they do.
You know this to be true. I know this to be true. Charles has been posting about this constantly.
| 257 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:25:27pm |
re: #247 Aceofwhat?
Intelligence really has nothing to do with it. You're completely right about that. Accusations that poor people are so dumb they vote for the GOP remind me of accusations that blacks are dumb because they vote for the Democrats.
However, it is still troubling that people who do benefit highly from 'income redistribution' tend to be so opposed to it. Just as it is hypocritical when the governors of states rail against the stimulus and then parade around taking credit for the money brought to their state by the stimulus.
| 258 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:26:12pm |
re: #249 Sigma_x
You did agree with a 'zing' that just called poor people 'dumb' for voting against their best interests.
It's not dumb to vote against your own self-interest. In fact, it can be the highest expression of conscience. That's a very bad metric for intelligence.
| 259 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:26:32pm |
re: #246 Existential_Donuts
Returning to lurker mode shortly. I don't comment much since having my ass handed to me for not knowing that Dick Cheney has another use for the word 'existential'. But I wanted to chime in about the elitist thing. I don't blame stupid people for not wanting to be called stupid. But the people that are voting against their own interests aren't doing it out of principle, they are doing it out of ignorance. For some reason people recoil at the word elitist, but I won't. These flown over masses have the same resources at their fingertips that I do, and they can easily find out details on any issue without having to be spoon fed. They choose to be dumb and then are appalled when they called out on it.
It's sad that being dumb is a virtue to so many people.
It's the presumption that they're voting against their own interests that bothers me so. It's an arrogant thing to say...i mean that as gently as possible - not that you are an arrogant person, but i think it's an arrogant thing to say. Why do you presume to know what everyone's self-interest is?
| 260 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:26:37pm |
re: #246 Existential_Donuts
Returning to lurker mode shortly. I don't comment much since having my ass handed to me for not knowing that Dick Cheney has another use for the word 'existential'. But I wanted to chime in about the elitist thing. I don't blame stupid people for not wanting to be called stupid. But the people that are voting against their own interests aren't doing it out of principle, they are doing it out of ignorance. For some reason people recoil at the word elitist, but I won't. These flown over masses have the same resources at their fingertips that I do, and they can easily find out details on any issue without having to be spoon fed. They choose to be dumb and then are appalled when they called out on it.
It's sad that being dumb is a virtue to so many people.
I agree, and I believe alot of it can be attributed to basic human nature and confirmation bias. People don't like having their pre-conceived notions challenged. A person with a certain mindset who is exposed to information that disproves their beliefs is actually more likely to believe the misinformation even more strongly.
| 261 |
HappyWarrior Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:26:54pm |
re: #257 Obdicut
Intelligence really has nothing to do with it. You're completely right about that. Accusations that poor people are so dumb they vote for the GOP remind me of accusations that blacks are dumb because they vote for the Democrats.
However, it is still troubling that people who do benefit highly from 'income redistribution' tend to be so opposed to it. Just as it is hypocritical when the governors of states rail against the stimulus and then parade around taking credit for the money brought to their state by the stimulus.
Agree with this 100%.
| 262 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:27:34pm |
re: #258 Obdicut
You did agree with a 'zing' that just called poor people 'dumb' for voting against their best interests.
It's not dumb to vote against your own self-interest. In fact, it can be the highest expression of conscience. That's a very bad metric for intelligence.
It can be the "highest expression of conscience?"
Really? Why, because YOU say so? LOL. You'll have to do better than that. Pull up a chart or something. Use a point of reference. You sound like you're on acid.
| 263 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:28:17pm |
re: #258 Obdicut
You did agree with a 'zing' that just called poor people 'dumb' for voting against their best interests.
It's not dumb to vote against your own self-interest. In fact, it can be the highest expression of conscience. That's a very bad metric for intelligence.
Exactly. What if someone is relatively poor now but expects to be relatively well-off at some point in their life? Why aren't they voting out of principle instead of stupidity?
I'll note that you don't stoop to these levels, so let me pause to give you credit that I intend to withold from Darryl and Darryl over here...
| 264 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:28:45pm |
re: #259 Aceofwhat?
You can quantify economic self-interest, and, as long as you're consistent about how you apply it, then say that some people are voting against their economic self interest.
People who do not profit from sales of capital but who support lowering the capital gains tax are in fact voting against their economic self-interest. They may, however, not believe they are doing so.
There is nothing elitist about saying that, and I think you'll find that there are few economic arguments you can make without asserting some form of best interest.
| 265 |
RogueOne Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:28:45pm |
Believing that the state should have primacy over the individual in this country is elitist. That type of elitism should be ridiculed on a daily basis for for being both aristocratic and ignorant. Having a degree from an Ivy league institution is a great thing, as long as it doesn't make you believe you know what's best for your neighbor even when he disagrees.
| 266 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:29:50pm |
re: #262 Sigma_x
It can be the "highest expression of conscience?"
Really? Why, because YOU say so? LOL. You'll have to do better than that. Pull up a chart or something. Use a point of reference. You sound like you're on acid.
You're hitting the wrong target, dude. I'm a lib-lib-liberal. Don't be so quick to lash out. I'm also kind of really hard to rile up, so you'll have to do harder.
If a slaveowner with a hundred slaves voted to end slavery and pay reparations, he'd be voting against his self-interest, and be voting his conscience.
Does it make sense now?
| 267 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:30:30pm |
re: #257 Obdicut
Intelligence really has nothing to do with it. You're completely right about that. Accusations that poor people are so dumb they vote for the GOP remind me of accusations that blacks are dumb because they vote for the Democrats.
However, it is still troubling that people who do benefit highly from 'income redistribution' tend to be so opposed to it. Just as it is hypocritical when the governors of states rail against the stimulus and then parade around taking credit for the money brought to their state by the stimulus.
There are all kinds of things that would benefit me. I don't agree with all of them in principle. The presumption that the poor are acting stupidly rather than voting out of some sort of principle, as a blanket statement, is blatantly prejudicial. I submit that if you substituted "gay" or any other class of person for "poor", you'd say it was a hateful and bigoted statement.
| 268 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:30:44pm |
re: #265 RogueOne
I often know the best thing for my neighbor even though he disagrees. That's because my neighbor believes lots of crank science about magnets and vaccines causing autism.
It's not elitist of me to know that I understand some things better than he does.
| 269 |
M. Dubious Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:31:21pm |
re: #264 Obdicut
I habitually vote against my own economical self interest. Simply because ther are other things more important.
| 270 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:31:26pm |
re: #267 Aceofwhat?
I'm sorry, did you miss my first sentence or something? I stated clearly that intelligence has nothing to do with this. I'm agreeing that it has nothing to do with the poor being stupid.
| 271 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:31:43pm |
re: #259 Aceofwhat?
It's the presumption that they're voting against their own interests that bothers me so. It's an arrogant thing to say...i mean that as gently as possible - not that you are an arrogant person, but i think it's an arrogant thing to say. Why do you presume to know what everyone's self-interest is?
arrogance is totally subjective, and being called arrogant by someone that doesn't get it doesn't bother me. Same with being called an elitist. Since it's all a matter of perspective in the first place, the point of view is what decides what category it gets put into. But voting against helping your own family and financial interests is NOT subjective, it's just dumb.
| 272 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:32:50pm |
re: #271 Existential_Donuts
Please see above. Voting against your own family and financial interests is not dumb. Failing to understand what your own interests are could possibly be called dumb-- but I think that condition is pretty much omnipresent. The existence of gambling backs me up on that.
| 273 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:32:59pm |
re: #264 Obdicut
You can quantify economic self-interest, and, as long as you're consistent about how you apply it, then say that some people are voting against their economic self interest.
People who do not profit from sales of capital but who support lowering the capital gains tax are in fact voting against their economic self-interest. They may, however, not believe they are doing so.
There is nothing elitist about saying that, and I think you'll find that there are few economic arguments you can make without asserting some form of best interest.
In case I overstepped, I will back up and agree with you. It is the presumption that they are voting against their self-interests because they are stupid and rich people are evil (i can't even quote it without rolling my eyes) which seems prejudiced. I know lots of people who believe it principled on occasion to vote against their self-interests.
Voting selfishly is not an intelligence test, unless you're a selfish liberal, i guess. Fortunately, that title does not apply to most liberals here at LGF...
| 274 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:33:40pm |
re: #272 Obdicut
Please see above. Voting against your own family and financial interests is not dumb. Failing to understand what your own interests are could possibly be called dumb-- but I think that condition is pretty much omnipresent. The existence of gambling backs me up on that.
If it's not dumb, then what is it?
| 275 |
RogueOne Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:33:40pm |
re: #268 Obdicut
I often know the best thing for my neighbor even though he disagrees. That's because my neighbor believes lots of crank science about magnets and vaccines causing autism.
It's not elitist of me to know that I understand some things better than he does.
It is when you decide your views should be held through the force of the state. We live in a democratic/representative republic, not an Aristocracy.
Snob/
| 276 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:34:04pm |
re: #270 Obdicut
I'm sorry, did you miss my first sentence or something? I stated clearly that intelligence has nothing to do with this. I'm agreeing that it has nothing to do with the poor being stupid.
no, no, i was agreeing with you and therefore disagreeing further with DrCordell and SigmaX, as i don't think they're having an easy time understanding this point.
i apologize that it sounded as if i were responding directly back to you. my fault.
| 277 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:35:42pm |
re: #273 Aceofwhat?
I think the actual charge that can be made is that a lot of the people who vote for what they percieve to be their best self-interests are actually voting against them, and people are calling that stupid. I do not find that stupid, and I don't see the use of calling it stupid anyway.
I do think that both parties, but, on economic issues the GOP far more than the Democrats, work to confuse people as to what their economic self-interest actually is, or even what their situation actually is.
Is someone who's taxes have gone down under Obama but who claims they've gone up 'dumb'? I don't find it a useful label to slap on them-- but they're definitely wrong, and it's worthwhile to note that.
| 278 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:35:56pm |
re: #254 Aceofwhat?
Thank you for expounding on the qualities i find the least attractive in a liberal. The combination of conspiracy theory (oooh...scary rich mind control), misunderstanding of economic strata (lots of rich people are democrats, shockingly) and absolute disdain for those of lower income results in a prejudicial outlook founded on speculation and emotion.
Fortunately, most who lean left here at LGF are not of the same ilk.
And thank you for further displaying the qualities I find the least attractive in a conservative. Namely, the fact that you can turn any conversation about ANYTHING into a diatribe about "liberal elitism." Notice that throughout this entire thread, you haven't actually said anything at all. You just launch ad-hominem attacks against anybody you perceive to be an "elitist."
Yes, I understand that there are rich Democrats. No, I don't have disdain for poor people. Can you not see that both of these facts have absolutely nothing to do with the point that I made? The GOP explicitly runs on a platform of policies that will be most beneficial to the rich. How else would you describe a party whose platform is based entirely on eliminating social services and social security?
And like I said previously, you can't operate a political party whose base is comprised solely of the economic elite. It just doesn't work that way. So obviously the GOP needs something else to lure in voters who won't benefit from their economic policies. They do so with a combination of mis-information and social wedge issues (Guns, Gays, God). None of this is a conspiracy theory, it's blatantly obvious on its face. Care to refute any of these facts?
| 279 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:36:09pm |
re: #272 Obdicut
Please see above. Voting against your own family and financial interests is not dumb. Failing to understand what your own interests are could possibly be called dumb-- but I think that condition is pretty much omnipresent. The existence of gambling backs me up on that.
Agree completely.
And presuming to know that a person is voting against their interests in stupidity rather than in principle, like DrCordell and SigmaX obviously do, is disgustingly arrogant. And i'm one arrogant SOB...i can smell my own...
| 280 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:37:10pm |
re: #276 Aceofwhat?
No problem. Just didn't want to be arguing with everyone in the thread at once.
| 281 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:37:13pm |
re: #277 Obdicut
I think the actual charge that can be made is that a lot of the people who vote for what they percieve to be their best self-interests are actually voting against them, and people are calling that stupid. I do not find that stupid, and I don't see the use of calling it stupid anyway.
I do think that both parties, but, on economic issues the GOP far more than the Democrats, work to confuse people as to what their economic self-interest actually is, or even what their situation actually is.
Is someone who's taxes have gone down under Obama but who claims they've gone up 'dumb'? I don't find it a useful label to slap on them-- but they're definitely wrong, and it's worthwhile to note that.
and as soon as you heard someone explain their reasoning, you'd engage them.
that is, as opposed to those who are content to simply slander them from afar.
it explains the gulf between my esteem for you and my esteem for some others...
| 282 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:37:39pm |
re: #280 Obdicut
No problem. Just didn't want to be arguing with everyone in the thread at once.
i find it counterproductive to pick on people who are saying the same thing that i am/
| 283 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:38:26pm |
Look, something like 80% of Tea Baggers (which is who we're really talking about here) think that their taxes have gone UP since Obama took office, when in fact their taxes have actually GONE DOWN.
When a political party knows nothing about the very thing they're named after, that's pretty fucking stupid, by anyone's standards.
| 284 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:38:44pm |
re: #275 RogueOne
It is when you decide your views should be held through the force of the state. We live in a democratic/representative republic, not an Aristocracy.
Snob/
I'm sorry, but you do agree that the state should have some regulatory function, right? That, for example, not just anyone should be allowed to sell a drug panted by a particular company, at the bare minimum?
I mean, what you just said basically works out to anarchy. If the views of no-one can be held through the force of the state, then what exactly is the function of the state?
| 285 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:38:52pm |
re: #259 Aceofwhat?
It's the presumption that they're voting against their own interests that bothers me so. It's an arrogant thing to say...i mean that as gently as possible - not that you are an arrogant person, but i think it's an arrogant thing to say. Why do you presume to know what everyone's self-interest is?
If I need to explain that quality health care is in everyone's best interest, then I'm sure I can answer your question in a way you will understand.
| 286 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:38:58pm |
re: #13 tradewind
This has to be an aberration, since it's coming from pro-Democrat union members who normally eschew violence.
[Link: wcbstv.com...]
Tacky, trashy, and inappropriate.
Wouldn't defend it coming from wingnuts, won't defend it coming from the union.
| 287 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:39:54pm |
re: #283 Sigma_x
If you were really talking about the Tea Party members, you should have said that instead of listing states. Since you did list states, that is, in fact, what you were really talking about.
Do you understand my point about how someone can vote against their own self-interest and it be a beautiful thing to do so? Or are you still content to tell me I'm on acid?
| 288 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:40:13pm |
re: #278 drcordell
And thank you for further displaying the qualities I find the least attractive in a conservative. Namely, the fact that you can turn any conversation about ANYTHING into a diatribe about "liberal elitism." Notice that throughout this entire thread, you haven't actually said anything at all. You just launch ad-hominem attacks against anybody you perceive to be an "elitist."
Yes, I understand that there are rich Democrats. No, I don't have disdain for poor people. Can you not see that both of these facts have absolutely nothing to do with the point that I made? The GOP explicitly runs on a platform of policies that will be most beneficial to the rich. How else would you describe a party whose platform is based entirely on eliminating social services and social security?
And like I said previously, you can't operate a political party whose base is comprised solely of the economic elite. It just doesn't work that way. So obviously the GOP needs something else to lure in voters who won't benefit from their economic policies. They do so with a combination of mis-information and social wedge issues (Guns, Gays, God). None of this is a conspiracy theory, it's blatantly obvious on its face. Care to refute any of these facts?
I didn't turn ANYTHING into a diatribe about liberal elitism. I turned "poor people are too dumb to vote for the right person" into a diatribe about liberal elitism because it is the poster child for liberal elitism.
I love it that you said something incredibly prejudiced and elitist, then complained that the conversation drifted to the subject of elitism. Good one.
| 289 |
RogueOne Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:40:37pm |
re: #284 Obdicut
Have to run folks, we'll take this up again later I'm sure Obdi. I've actually enjoyed reading everyone's arguments back and forth.
| 290 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:40:38pm |
re: #283 Sigma_x
I've been working on a stockholm syndrome theory to try and explain the teabaggers - i'll post it when i've got it fleshed out.
| 291 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:41:34pm |
re: #285 Existential_Donuts
If I need to explain that quality health care is in everyone's best interest, then I'm sure I can answer your question in a way you will understand.
Of course quality heath care is in everyone's best interest. We already had quality health care.
The latest bill was not about health care. It was about health insurance.
Did I answer that in a way that you can understand?
| 292 |
garhighway Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:41:35pm |
re: #180 Sigma_x
You know who I hope he appoints? Mario Coumo.
Too old.
You want someone relatively young, since the appointment process is so difficult.
| 293 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:41:47pm |
re: #287 Obdicut
If you were really talking about the Tea Party members, you should have said that instead of listing states. Since you did list states, that is, in fact, what you were really talking about.
Do you understand my point about how someone can vote against their own self-interest and it be a beautiful thing to do so? Or are you still content to tell me I'm on acid?
I'm still a little fuzzy on it, in all honesty. So are you saying that they'll vote against what's in their best economic interests because, say, they want to protect the life of the unborn or something like that?
If that's what you mean, then yeah - I get it. That's real honorable.
Do I think it makes them any less stupid? Sadly, no.
| 294 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:41:59pm |
re: #55 Killgore Trout
They'll just claim ACORN stole the election.
Is it really stupid for me to say that I kind of hope the Republicans get at least a decent bounce out of the midterms, because if they don't, they will blame ACORN, and scream and wail even more, and I hope that a few victories will calm some of these folks down a little?
| 295 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:42:02pm |
re: #279 Aceofwhat?
Agree completely.
And presuming to know that a person is voting against their interests in stupidity rather than in principle, like DrCordell and SigmaX obviously do, is disgustingly arrogant. And i'm one arrogant SOB...i can smell my own...
I'm not sure you're following here. The entire point is that the low-information GOP voters don't believe they are actually voting against their own interests. They believe they actually are benefiting themselves, because they do not have the right information. To use Obdicuts example, someone who voted against Obama because they believed their taxes would rise, when in fact they dropped. They may have voted against higher taxes in "principle." Except in reality, they actually voted for higher taxes.
| 296 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:43:43pm |
Just a little re-cap...
GINGRICH: Obama 'most radical president ever'...
LIMBAUGH: Obama 'inflicting untold damage on this great country'...
PALIN: Obama's Nuke Stance Like Kid Who Says 'Punch Me in Face'...
LIZ CHENEY: Obama Putting America on 'Path to Decline'...
HANNITY: Obama 'Is a Socialist'...
SAVAGE: 'Obama The Destroyer'...
But then there's this...
---The Dow? Up from 7,000 to 11,000.
---Jobs? 700,000 losses a month to 160,000 jobs created.
---Recovery/Stimulus Act? Added 1.8 million jobs.
---GDP (economic growth)? -6 percent to +6 percent. (Technically, the recession is over.)
---Housing prices? Up 20%.
---Affordable Health Care (and you won't get cut off mid-chemo anymore.)
AHHHHHH!!!! IT'S A LIVING HELL!!!! IMPEACH HIM!!!!!
| 297 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:44:29pm |
re: #295 drcordell
I'm not sure you're following here. The entire point is that the low-information GOP voters don't believe they are actually voting against their own interests. They believe they actually are benefiting themselves, because they do not have the right information. To use Obdicuts example, someone who voted against Obama because they believed their taxes would rise, when in fact they dropped. They may have voted against higher taxes in "principle." Except in reality, they actually voted for higher taxes.
This is you presuming to know why poor GOP voters chose in the manner that they did. If only they understood better, they'd have voted differently. That may very well be true of some. As a blanket statement, it is an arrogant and elitist thing to say.
| 298 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:45:03pm |
re: #105 Obdicut
Ronald Reagan was a commie who wanted us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 1/3rd, remember. He had a fool's vision of a world free from atomic weapons.
I never realized Reagan was so naive and moonbatty. Maybe it's just because I was in grade school, and everyone acted like he was a big deal just because he was the President.
| 299 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:45:09pm |
re: #293 Sigma_x
I'm not sure why you're fuzzy on it, when I gave a clear example. Let me give you one that can occur in the present day.
Do you think that someone who, say, is going to inherit a house worth many, many millions of dollars but who votes for the inheritance tax to go up is voting against their economic self interests? And, if you do think so, do you agree that that could be a good action from a good motive, out of consideration that they didn't really do anything to earn that house and therefore high taxes on it are appropriate?
And again, are you still comfortable with saying that I'm on acid? When I have done acid, I've tended to post on the internet a hell of a lot less. One time I thought I was naked when I wasn't. That made for odd conversations.
| 300 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:45:31pm |
re: #291 Aceofwhat?
Of course quality heath care is in everyone's best interest. We already had quality health care.
The latest bill was not about health care. It was about health insurance.
Did I answer that in a way that you can understand?
no, as a matter of fact you didn't. You lost me at "We already had quality health care." Ask my mom-in-law about that, she may disagree. But, considering your position, I'm sure it doesn't matter. Hearing you separate health care reform from health insurance reform should by interesting since the reason health care is so poor is because of the abuse of health care insurance. I'm sure you would rather treat the symptom than the disease.
| 301 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:46:47pm |
re: #300 Existential_Donuts
I agree with you on health care, but I can't agree with you portraying Rogue as someone who would rather treat the symptom than the disease. "Rather" implies intentionality.
That's a good microscopic look at the macroscopic semantic problem we're having here.
| 302 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:46:52pm |
re: #108 Sigma_x
Here's what I would LOVE those of you who can't stand Obama to defend, even half-heartedly -
What happened to, when Bush was President, it was tantamount to treason to bash the President while we were at war? That protesters were "emboldening the enemy" while "troops were in harm's way?"
We're still at war, right?
So what happened to all that? Because I distinctly remember hearing it over and over again during Bush's terms in office.
Does that only count if it's a republican in office?
After repeating 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism, yeah RIGHT...' and sneering for eight years, the right fringe suddenly went 'hey, that makes a whole lot of sense!'
Now it's the PRESIDENT who's emboldening America's enemies.
| 303 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:46:52pm |
re: #297 Aceofwhat?
This is you presuming to know why poor GOP voters chose in the manner that they did. If only they understood better, they'd have voted differently. That may very well be true of some. As a blanket statement, it is an arrogant and elitist thing to say.
It's not a blanket statement because I've read the exit polls. I've read the interviews with these people. I've seen the economic data firsthand. I'd pull you the data right now except that would merely further your accusations that I'm being "elitist" with my "fancy numbers" and such.
It's not a hunch that lower-income GOP voters are low-information. It's a goddamn documented fact.
| 304 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:47:19pm |
re: #297 Aceofwhat?
Lower income voters hear about tax rises through viral emails and coldcalling - these voters are not informed of the threshold of these tax increases, therefoire they believe their taxes will go up.
The same way the birther/nirther/death panel crapola still has a constituency - half fucking truths and bullshit fed to people who beleive it.
People are even more inclined to believe scare stories about the economy and taxes than death panels and birth certificates - and we know how many of those people are still around the ether.
| 305 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:47:27pm |
re: #297 Aceofwhat?
Hey, I have an idea - hows about instead of you relying on the ol' tired and true righteously indignant cries of "arrogant and elitist thing(s) to say", you actually try backing up and reasonably defending the policies of the party that's so clearly dear to your heart?
Like, for the umpteenth time - do you really think it was a reasonable and just thing for the republicans to vote against extending unemployment benefits?
Or am I being elitist in asking this of you?
| 306 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:47:29pm |
re: #300 Existential_Donuts
And actually, separating health care reform from health insurance reform is a good thing to do, and conflating them was one of the ways the GOP dishonestly attacked the bill.
| 307 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:47:49pm |
re: #296 Sigma_x
i agree with none of the quotes at the top and am quite amused that you attribute all of the cherry-picked items at the bottom to Obama.
How do you put together such a laughable analysis of the economic situation and then presume to tell anyone what their economic self-interests are??
| 308 |
Wozza Matter? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:48:02pm |
re: #303 drcordell
Low information fox viewers...............
| 309 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:48:47pm |
re: #136 Sigma_x
Forget it - it's like trying to discuss particle physics with a poodle.
Poodles are extremely bright, as dogs go. I'd start with Newton's Laws, and try to work from there.
| 310 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:48:55pm |
re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist
After repeating 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism, yeah RIGHT...' and sneering for eight years, the right fringe suddenly went 'hey, that makes a whole lot of sense!'
Now it's the PRESIDENT who's emboldening America's enemies.
Are you sensing a theme here? Anyone who opposes their agenda is emboldening America's enemies. The smear doesn't change, only the direction it's directed in. Republicans are in power? Sign the loyalty oath to GW or else you're a terrorist. Black Democrat's in power? Sign the oath of dissent or else you're a terrorist. Oh and unconstitutional too!
| 311 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:49:03pm |
re: #301 Obdicut
I agree with you on health care, but I can't agree with you portraying Rogue as someone who would rather treat the symptom than the disease. "Rather" implies intentionality.
That's a good microscopic look at the macroscopic semantic problem we're having here.
I think I need you to clarify your point, I'm not getting it. Not by your words, I just don't think I am processing your point correctly.
| 312 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:49:06pm |
re: #307 Aceofwhat?
"a laughable analysis of the economic situation?"
In what way is it a "laughable analysis?"
It's one thing to say that. Shit, a MONKEY could say that. But hows about you back up that statement just a tiny bit with actual facts?
| 313 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:49:35pm |
re: #303 drcordell
It's a fact that many people who vote for Democrats are low-information too, though. It's a problem throughout the country. The GOP, I feel, takes far more advantage of low-information voters and actively works to keep voters low-information-- or believing the opposite of the truth. However, that doesn't mean that people voting for the Democrats actually understand their economic self interest.
Capitalism, taxation, economic issues are fucking hard, even if you're smart and knowledgeable. Knowing what your self-interest is depends on the scale, as well-- self interest in terms of money in the bank, or in terms of, say, having a more educated populace to draw workers from?
| 314 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:49:44pm |
re: #142 Sigma_x
Maybe he should've shown the Iranian regime the we we showed France when they wouldn't back us on going into Iraq.
You know, when they changed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" in the Capital Cafeteria.
THAT kind of tough talk?
I like Freedom Lavender room-spray. And I plan to buy my husband some shirts with Freedom cuffs in the fall.
| 315 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:50:37pm |
re: #145 HappyWarrior
What Persian Rugs become Freedom rugs :D. What's funny is that one of the Congressmen who proposed the Freedom fries was a strong supporter of Ron Paul and is now an opponent of the war. I've been in the Congressional Cafeteria. The freedom fries weren't bad. Not 5 Guys good but pretty good for a cafeteria.
Well, after the flap over the cartoons in Denmark, bakeries in Iran rebranded Danish "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed Pastries".
| 316 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:50:45pm |
re: #300 Existential_Donuts
no, as a matter of fact you didn't. You lost me at "We already had quality health care." Ask my mom-in-law about that, she may disagree. But, considering your position, I'm sure it doesn't matter. Hearing you separate health care reform from health insurance reform should by interesting since the reason health care is so poor is because of the abuse of health care insurance. I'm sure you would rather treat the symptom than the disease.
If health care is so poor because of the abuse of health care insurance, then we should reform health care insurance.
Health care is surgery...visits...shots...etc. Insurance is insurance. Am I wrong to consider them separate terms?
I'm sorry to hear about your MIL. Best wishes for her health-
| 317 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:51:08pm |
re: #313 Obdicut
It's a fact that many people who vote for Democrats are low-information too, though. It's a problem throughout the country. The GOP, I feel, takes far more advantage of low-information voters and actively works to keep voters low-information-- or believing the opposite of the truth. However, that doesn't mean that people voting for the Democrats actually understand their economic self interest.
Capitalism, taxation, economic issues are fucking hard, even if you're smart and knowledgeable. Knowing what your self-interest is depends on the scale, as well-- self interest in terms of money in the bank, or in terms of, say, having a more educated populace to draw workers from?
This is where aceofwhat? isn't following us. I know for a fact that there are hundreds of thousands of low-information, completely dumb voters who cast their ballots for Democrats. I never said that the GOP has a monopoly on stupid. But it's not low-information voters that are keeping the Democratic party politically viable. That's the difference.
| 318 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:51:30pm |
re: #306 Obdicut
And actually, separating health care reform from health insurance reform is a good thing to do, and conflating them was one of the ways the GOP dishonestly attacked the bill.
Interesting point of view, separating them would go a long way indeed. But they aren't separate. Insurance companies are for profit, which naturally means they will act in ways to maximize profit. But one person's profit maximization is another person's rescission.
| 319 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:51:30pm |
re: #311 Existential_Donuts
I meant Ace, anyway.
Ace wants to solve the problem, not the symptom. I know this because he's a good guy with a good heart. Accusing him of 'rather' solving the symptom than the problem accuses him of intentionality, which you shouldn't do unless you have a degree in Interwebs Psychiatry, and even then only if you pay Charles $100.
You can say that his approach treats the symptom and not the disease, but when you talk about what he'd 'rather' do, then you're making an assumption without merit.
| 320 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:51:41pm |
re: #307 Aceofwhat?
i agree with none of the quotes at the top and am quite amused that you attribute all of the cherry-picked items at the bottom to Obama.
How do you put together such a laughable analysis of the economic situation and then presume to tell anyone what their economic self-interests are??
I'm waiting.
| 321 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:52:52pm |
re: #312 Sigma_x
"a laughable analysis of the economic situation?"
In what way is it a "laughable analysis?"
It's one thing to say that. Shit, a MONKEY could say that. But hows about you back up that statement just a tiny bit with actual facts?
sure. "from 700,000 jobs lost per month to 160,000 jobs gained"?
really?
what's the total net job change since Obama took office?
Or are we putting the start/end dates on each of your little "statistics" whereever it's most convenient for your point?
Like i said...i'd prefer not to give presidents much blame for recessions or much credit for recoveries. But if you want to go there, let's talk numbers. I like numbers.
| 322 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:52:59pm |
re: #320 Sigma_x
I'm waiting.
I'm waiting on you, too, dude. Am I less fun to talk to than Ace for some reason? It must be all the acid.
| 323 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:53:29pm |
re: #179 blueraven
And just what did all the tough talk coming from the Bush administration accomplish? What difference did they make in 8 years in Iran and Korea? You act like all this just started over the last year.
I guess more Axis of Evil talk would help. /
Bush took the Norks off the Axis of Evil. Thank God, because if Obama tried that, the screaming and the ranting would never stop.
I assume the Axis is now defunct. Bush removed the Norks, Iraq is now under remodeling, and Iran can really only be a point of evil by itself.
| 324 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:53:30pm |
re: #313 Obdicut
It's a fact that many people who vote for Democrats are low-information too, though. It's a problem throughout the country. The GOP, I feel, takes far more advantage of low-information voters and actively works to keep voters low-information-- or believing the opposite of the truth. However, that doesn't mean that people voting for the Democrats actually understand their economic self interest.
Capitalism, taxation, economic issues are fucking hard, even if you're smart and knowledgeable. Knowing what your self-interest is depends on the scale, as well-- self interest in terms of money in the bank, or in terms of, say, having a more educated populace to draw workers from?
I might also add that the Democratic party hasn't done everything in its power to ensure that the population stays dumb. It's the GOP that tries to gut education funding and public schools every single year. The Democrats aren't afraid of having to face re-election from an electorate made up of educated people. The GOP is.
| 325 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:53:41pm |
re: #322 Obdicut
I'm waiting on you, too, dude. Am I less fun to talk to than Ace for some reason? It must be all the acid.
I answered you. It's somewhere in the morass of comments. I'm not THAT rude.
| 326 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:54:04pm |
re: #181 Aceofwhat?
thanks. sorta kills the idea that 'republicans have it in for poor people', doesn't it...
Also sort of kills the 'poor people vote for the Dems so they can get free shit and not have to earn a living' meme.
| 327 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:54:28pm |
re: #317 drcordell
This is where aceofwhat? isn't following us. I know for a fact that there are hundreds of thousands of low-information, completely dumb voters who cast their ballots for Democrats. I never said that the GOP has a monopoly on stupid. But it's not low-information voters that are keeping the Democratic party politically viable. That's the difference.
Oh, i'm following. I don't make blanket statements about poor people, whether they vote GOP or Democrat. You believe that the states listed voted for McCain because the poor people are dumb. (just quoting you)
Pretty sure i followed.
| 328 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:54:37pm |
re: #323 SanFranciscoZionist
Bush took the Norks off the Axis of Evil. Thank God, because if Obama tried that, the screaming and the ranting would never stop.
I assume the Axis is now defunct. Bush removed the Norks, Iraq is now under remodeling, and Iran can really only be a point of evil by itself.
I think it's safe to say the "Axis" is not defunct. Hell, the guy who invented it isn't even considered a Conservative anymore.
| 329 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:54:50pm |
re: #322 Obdicut
I'm waiting on you, too, dude. Am I less fun to talk to than Ace for some reason? It must be all the acid.
you gonna share that shit or what???
| 330 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:56:06pm |
re: #325 Sigma_x
I answered you. It's somewhere in the morass of comments. I'm not THAT rude.
You didn't answer me when I stated it again more clearly. See my 299.
And you never clarified about whether you believe I'm the world's most boring person on acid, either.
| 331 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:56:39pm |
re: #326 SanFranciscoZionist
Also sort of kills the 'poor people vote for the Dems so they can get free shit and not have to earn a living' meme.
No, that's the beauty of this...in DrCordell's and SigmaX's world, that's why poor people OUGHT to be voting for the Dems! And they're dumb if they don't!
So rarely can i have my philosophical cake and eat it too...
| 332 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:56:39pm |
re: #329 Aceofwhat?
you gonna share that shit or what???
Politics on acid doesn't sound like fun at all. Although a few bong hits all around would probably tone down the rhetoric.
| 333 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:56:50pm |
re: #329 Aceofwhat?
I stopped dropping acid a long time ago, and I always preferred peyote, too. See, with peyote, you get to vomit blood, which calls attention to the gravity of the situation.
Not kidding, either.
| 334 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:56:52pm |
re: #216 Aceofwhat?
Good. I'll sign you up as a fan of charter schools and voucher programs. I don't think we should lock kids in failing schools either. Most Dems disagree, however...
I've worked with charter schools. They are not a fix for the system.
| 335 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:57:31pm |
re: #333 Obdicut
I stopped dropping acid a long time ago, and I always preferred peyote, too. See, with peyote, you get to vomit blood, which calls attention to the gravity of the situation.
Not kidding, either.
Yowza. I've never tried anything beyond weed, so for the record, i'm all talk...
| 336 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:57:37pm |
re: #220 Aceofwhat?
That's fine. That's what you feel. There are elitists here who presume to understand that if the "poor" don't agree with them, they must be "dumb".
Disgusting.
Yes. Some of them repeatedly insist that the Democrats 'buy' the black vote with 'entitlement programs'.
Disgusting coming from either side of the aisle.
| 337 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:57:52pm |
re: #327 Aceofwhat?
Oh, i'm following. I don't make blanket statements about poor people, whether they vote GOP or Democrat. You believe that the states listed voted for McCain because the poor people are dumb. (just quoting you)
Pretty sure i followed.
Like I said before, I didn't say they were all dumb. There is a difference between dumb and misinformed. A difference that you clearly can't manage to wrap your head around. You simply can't seem to acknowledge that there is tons of money to be made exploiting less-educated members of our society politically.
Where do you think Glenn Beck's $35 million dollars a year comes from? Who do you think is putting Sean Hannity's books on the NYT best seller list? You think it's millionaires?
| 338 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:57:53pm |
re: #334 SanFranciscoZionist
I've worked with charter schools. They are not a fix for the system.
In many ways they are a perpetuation of the problem.
| 339 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:58:46pm |
re: #335 Aceofwhat?
Heh. I sincerely think everyone should try a very strong hallucinogenic at least once. It really does give you an interesting perspective.
I realize what with family obligations that this may be something you have to save up for a midlife crisis.
| 340 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 1:59:01pm |
re: #334 SanFranciscoZionist
I've worked with charter schools. They are not a fix for the system.
That's fine. I defer to your experience here. OTOH, neither does spending per pupil correlate well with performance. It's more complicated than that...as opposed to the simplistic reasons offered above.
| 341 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:00:05pm |
re: #336 SanFranciscoZionist
Yes. Some of them repeatedly insist that the Democrats 'buy' the black vote with 'entitlement programs'.
Disgusting coming from either side of the aisle.
Agreed. And if you ever catch me even dipping my toe into that pool, i want you to find the nearest 2x4 and beat me into a shapeless, bloody mass.
| 342 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:00:43pm |
re: #331 Aceofwhat?
No, that's the beauty of this...in DrCordell's and SigmaX's world, that's why poor people OUGHT to be voting for the Dems! And they're dumb if they don't!
So rarely can i have my philosophical cake and eat it too...
Whether you like it or not, one of the major ideological differences between cons and libs are is an essential un-selfishness (cue the liberal elite thing) that libs have over cons. I am PROUD that I stand for those that help the less fortunate by providing welfare and those other things that drive conservatives nuts. I understand the bootstraps thing, but that isn't always possible.
| 343 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:00:49pm |
re: #341 Aceofwhat?
What, and tire herself out for you? Be a man, and beat yourself!
| 344 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:00:55pm |
re: #339 Obdicut
Heh. I sincerely think everyone should try a very strong hallucinogenic at least once. It really does give you an interesting perspective.
I realize what with family obligations that this may be something you have to save up for a midlife crisis.
on the upside, it sounds more practical than some wildly stupid car...
| 345 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:01:53pm |
re: #344 Aceofwhat?
Go hang out with the Hopi for the peyote ritual, and then it'll have cultural meaning and all that jazz.
| 346 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:02:03pm |
re: #331 Aceofwhat?
No, that's the beauty of this...in DrCordell's and SigmaX's world, that's why poor people OUGHT to be voting for the Dems! And they're dumb if they don't!
So rarely can i have my philosophical cake and eat it too...
Yeah...I've heard the argument from the other side too often to leap on it again when it crosses the aisle. Sorry.
| 347 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:02:06pm |
re: #329 Aceofwhat?
Wait - what, exactly are you having a hard time coming to grips with? The fact that we're no longer shedding 6-700K jobs a month? Or are you implying that there haven't been an additional 160K jobs added since he took office?
Here, take it up with Bloomberg and the BLS if you disagree.
| 348 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:02:22pm |
re: #331 Aceofwhat?
No, that's the beauty of this...in DrCordell's and SigmaX's world, that's why poor people OUGHT to be voting for the Dems! And they're dumb if they don't!
So rarely can i have my philosophical cake and eat it too...
Will you please just hit delete every time you type my name? Because you haven't the faintest fucking idea what I am talking about. And it's getting quite tiresome responding to your slander.
Poor people ought to be voting for Dems not because of the "free shit" they would get. But because it would give them a chance to not have to rely on "free shit" from the government. Who do you think is affected by medical bankruptcies? Poor people! Who do you think benefits from stricter workplace safety regulations? Poor people! Who do you think benefits from increased minimum wages? Poor people!
| 349 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:03:23pm |
re: #347 Sigma_x
That was, by the way, the latest numbers on the employment situation from the BSL, accessible @ bloomberg.com under economic calendar by anyone who cares to look.
| 350 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:03:31pm |
re: #342 Existential_Donuts
Whether you like it or not, one of the major ideological differences between cons and libs are is an essential un-selfishness (cue the liberal elite thing) that libs have over cons. I am PROUD that I stand for those that help the less fortunate by providing welfare and those other things that drive conservatives nuts. I understand the bootstraps thing, but that isn't always possible.
That's an awful low thing to say. I'm conservative, so i'm selfish.
Another way of putting it is that you really don't understand both sides of the argument, so rather than understanding (but disagreeing with) a POV which is honestly offered as a potential better solution, you stop short and crown yourself Sir Unselfish.
Thanks for making the effort...
| 351 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:03:34pm |
re: #338 Obdicut
In many ways they are a perpetuation of the problem.
Damn skippy.
People!!! The KIPP solution will not work as a nationwide system!! It's a good program, but it will not fix America's schools!!!
| 352 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:04:14pm |
re: #340 Aceofwhat?
That's fine. I defer to your experience here. OTOH, neither does spending per pupil correlate well with performance. It's more complicated than that...as opposed to the simplistic reasons offered above.
We badly need a total rehaul. It is a pity this is so viciously partisan.
| 353 |
SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:04:28pm |
re: #341 Aceofwhat?
Agreed. And if you ever catch me even dipping my toe into that pool, i want you to find the nearest 2x4 and beat me into a shapeless, bloody mass.
Of course, anything for you, Ace!
| 354 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:06:39pm |
re: #337 drcordell
Like I said before, I didn't say they were all dumb. There is a difference between dumb and misinformed. A difference that you clearly can't manage to wrap your head around. You simply can't seem to acknowledge that there is tons of money to be made exploiting less-educated members of our society politically.
Where do you think Glenn Beck's $35 million dollars a year comes from? Who do you think is putting Sean Hannity's books on the NYT best seller list? You think it's millionaires?
Here's what you said, for the record:
It just proves that poor people are oftentimes too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.
Pretty sure that was a blanket statement.
| 355 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:07:20pm |
re: #350 Aceofwhat?
That's an awful low thing to say. I'm conservative, so i'm selfish.
Another way of putting it is that you really don't understand both sides of the argument, so rather than understanding (but disagreeing with) a POV which is honestly offered as a potential better solution, you stop short and crown yourself Sir Unselfish.
Thanks for making the effort...
Yeah, I think conservatives are selfish. I think you almost have to be for it to work. You want honest discussion, there it is. Ideological differences are deep and extremely personal. And also very subjective, which makes discussion volatile. It is as plain on the nose on my face that it's "I got mine, you go get yours. And if you can't TFB." in order be a conservative. If you have any instance where that isn't true, I will gladly concede.
| 356 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:07:25pm |
re: #352 SanFranciscoZionist
We badly need a total rehaul. It is a pity this is so viciously partisan.
Problems in this country are mounting much faster than the solutions for them. Which is why Obama and the Democrats have my support: They are actually trying to solve shit. They may get things wrong. They may get a lot of things wrong. But they recognize what the problems are, are willing to call them problems, and willing to actually commit to fixing them.
The party of "Hell No" spends half its time saying there is no problem and the other half saying there is no solution.
| 357 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:08:57pm |
re: #347 Sigma_x
Wait - what, exactly are you having a hard time coming to grips with? The fact that we're no longer shedding 6-700K jobs a month? Or are you implying that there haven't been an additional 160K jobs added since he took office?
Here, take it up with Bloomberg and the BLS if you disagree.
Ach, those are the numbers for MARCH, not since he took office.
Please, tell me more about how you understand what's in peoples' best self-interests. You can't even read a damn graph.
Wasting my time, you are...
| 358 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:09:45pm |
re: #355 Existential_Donuts
I disagree. But then, I've been told I'm a conservative.
I think that we should have single payer health insurance, do away with capital gains tax and replace it with straight income tax, allow gay marriage with full rights, increase the separation between church and state into a rock-solid wall, and spend money like it's going out of style on alternative energy research.
But I completely disagree that to be conservative is to be selfish. At its root, honest conservatives make the charge that you did earlier: That liberals are trying to fix the symptom, and not the problem. I think they're wrong, 'conservatives', on most economic issues. But implying, as you do, a psychological connection to selfishness for all conservatives is just silly.
| 359 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:09:50pm |
re: #355 Existential_Donuts
Yeah, I think conservatives are selfish. I think you almost have to be for it to work. You want honest discussion, there it is. Ideological differences are deep and extremely personal. And also very subjective, which makes discussion volatile. It is as plain on the nose on my face that it's "I got mine, you go get yours. And if you can't TFB." in order be a conservative. If you have any instance where that isn't true, I will gladly concede.
Ok. At the very least, i appreciate the forthrightness. I much prefer someone who just comes out and says it, over someone who believes it but isn't adult enough to own up to it.
So kudos for that-
| 360 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:10:16pm |
re: #358 Obdicut
I disagree. But then, I've been told I'm a conservative.
I think that we should have single payer health insurance, do away with capital gains tax and replace it with straight income tax, allow gay marriage with full rights, increase the separation between church and state into a rock-solid wall, and spend money like it's going out of style on alternative energy research.
But I completely disagree that to be conservative is to be selfish. At its root, honest conservatives make the charge that you did earlier: That liberals are trying to fix the symptom, and not the problem. I think they're wrong, 'conservatives', on most economic issues. But implying, as you do, a psychological connection to selfishness for all conservatives is just silly.
well said
| 361 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:10:32pm |
re: #358 Obdicut
By 'straight' income tax I still mean a highly progressive one. Apologies for any confusion.
| 362 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:11:49pm |
re: #360 Aceofwhat?
Dude I'm so tripping on acid right now, I have no clue what I'm typing. I think I'm playing Earthbound. Don't tell me, or you'll ruin it for me.
| 363 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:11:57pm |
re: #352 SanFranciscoZionist
We badly need a total rehaul. It is a pity this is so viciously partisan.
I am literally open to any and all solutions which don't begin and end with "we need to spend a lot more money".
Money may well be a part of it...it's just not the ONLY part.
But you're absolutely right...screw partisanship. Our kids deserve better.
| 364 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:12:16pm |
re: #362 Obdicut
Dude I'm so tripping on acid right now, I have no clue what I'm typing. I think I'm playing Earthbound. Don't tell me, or you'll ruin it for me.
It's ok if you're naked...i just don't want to know...
| 365 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:13:04pm |
| 366 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:13:13pm |
re: #354 Aceofwhat?
Here's what you said, for the record:
It just proves that poor people are oftentimes too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.Pretty sure that was a blanket statement.
Oftentimes is not all of the time. And you still haven't refuted a single point I have made. You've merely continued to try and call me an "elitist" and tried to shame me for calling some poor voters dumb?
Explain to me exactly how someone making $18k a year could ever rationally cast a ballot for the political party that wishes to deny them access to public schools, health care, social security benefits and unemployment benefits?
| 367 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:14:33pm |
re: #364 Aceofwhat?
We're all naked, man.
To quote from an awesomely underappreciated movie: "I go naked the better to incite the pity of God."
| 368 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:15:18pm |
re: #366 drcordell
I've actually done a reasonably good job of explaining that, Cordell. Maybe you could read my posts and see if you get where I'm coming from on the subject?
I think you and Ace are simply talking past each other.
| 369 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:15:43pm |
re: #357 Aceofwhat?
Ach, those are the numbers for MARCH, not since he took office.
Please, tell me more about how you understand what's in peoples' best self-interests. You can't even read a damn graph.
Wasting my time, you are...
Oh my GOD, there's no way anyone can be that stupid. No way.
Just so we're clear on this - there have been NINE MILLION JOBS LOST IN THE US SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.
But - and this is a big but - there have been 162K jobs so far created thanks to the jobs bill (and there will be more to come) that the republicans voted AGAINST.
Those jobs were created in March. Get it? DO. YOU. GET. IT?!!!
It's the first month where we had actual JOB GROWTH.
P.S. Speaking of jobs - you did a far better one at making yourself look like an ass than I ever could. Thanks.
| 370 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:15:46pm |
re: #366 drcordell
Oftentimes is not all of the time. And you still haven't refuted a single point I have made. You've merely continued to try and call me an "elitist" and tried to shame me for calling some poor voters dumb?
Explain to me exactly how someone making $18k a year could ever rationally cast a ballot for the political party that wishes to deny them access to public schools, health care, social security benefits and unemployment benefits?
Because the party does not wish to deny them access to public schools, health care, social security benefits, and unemployment benefits.
There ya go.
If you want to restate that in a fashion that more closely resembles something that happened in the real world, i'll be happy to engage it in more depth for you.
| 371 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:16:01pm |
re: #360 Aceofwhat?
well said
I agree that it was well stated. Is is safe to say in a broad statement that each individual can point out ideological differences within themselves. I am conservative when it comes to some things. But our ideology is manifested into reality by the representatives we choose to support. Every GOP candidate/representative I can think of is loathe to support anything remotely liberal, and actively work to increase profits and decrease benefits. Am I wrong? Can either of you point to ONE THING that can prove me wrong?
| 372 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:17:02pm |
re: #370 Aceofwhat?
Actually, 162K is just the number of net jobs gained in a month.
If it weren't for the stimulus and the jobs bill (again, that your dear republicans voted against) there would've been probably DOUBLE that lost.
| 373 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:17:13pm |
re: #369 Sigma_x
Hey, I'm still waiting for a reply, by the way.
The use of capital letters and exclamation points don't really add much to your argument, by the way.
| 374 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:17:40pm |
re: #373 Obdicut
Yeah, you're right - I hate when people do that. I gotta stop myself.
| 375 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:17:47pm |
re: #369 Sigma_x
Oh my GOD, there's no way anyone can be that stupid. No way.
Just so we're clear on this - there have been NINE MILLION JOBS LOST IN THE US SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.
But - and this is a big but - there have been 162K jobs so far created thanks to the jobs bill (and there will be more to come) that the republicans voted AGAINST.
Those jobs were created in March. Get it? DO. YOU. GET. IT?!!!
It's the first month where we had actual JOB GROWTH.
P.S. Speaking of jobs - you did a far better one at making yourself look like an ass than I ever could. Thanks.
You said
Or are you implying that there haven't been an additional 160K jobs added since he took office?
I can only reply to what you say. You said 160k jobs added since he took office, which is blatantly false. 160k jobs were added in March, not total since he took office.
Did you already forget what you said?
| 376 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:20:27pm |
re: #375 Aceofwhat?
There have been far more than 162K thousand jobs created thanks to the stimulus bill and the jobs bill. That is a fact.
March was the 1st month where there was an actual net gain of 162K jobs, as opposed to, say, the 700K jobs lost per month during Bush's last few months of office.
But, again, just so we're clear on this - there have been far more than 162K jobs created under Obama.
| 377 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:20:28pm |
re: #371 Existential_Donuts
I agree that it was well stated. Is is safe to say in a broad statement that each individual can point out ideological differences within themselves. I am conservative when it comes to some things. But our ideology is manifested into reality by the representatives we choose to support. Every GOP candidate/representative I can think of is loathe to support anything remotely liberal, and actively work to increase profits and decrease benefits. Am I wrong? Can either of you point to ONE THING that can prove me wrong?
I'd love to, but at the risk of sounding argumentative, i don't know which candidates or representatives you're thinking of.
Let's talk "increase profits and decrease benefits". Why do you think that republicans are working to decrease benefits, ad nauseam? What do you mean by "benefits"?
| 378 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:20:47pm |
re: #374 Sigma_x
Great. So are you also going to answer me, or am I too boring because I'm on acid?
| 379 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:21:41pm |
re: #370 Aceofwhat?
Because the party does not wish to deny them access to public schools, health care, social security benefits, and unemployment benefits.
There ya go.
If you want to restate that in a fashion that more closely resembles something that happened in the real world, i'll be happy to engage it in more depth for you.
I would respect you alot more if you would at least argue from an intellectually honest position. You are going to sit here and tell me that the GOP isn't against public education?
Reagan tried to eliminate the entire Department of Education.
The entire GOP just voted against Nixon's Health Insurance reform plan. And need I mention that the GOP was in power for 8 straight years under Bush without taking a single step towards health care reform?
The GOP's alternative budget released by Rep. Ryan explicitly eliminated Social Security. This is a fact.
And unemployment benefits have routinely been held up by GOP Senators since November of 2009. Oh, and the stimulus package that was in large part to fund state unemployment funds? Not a single GOP vote there either.
| 380 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:21:53pm |
re: #376 Sigma_x
There have been far more than 162K thousand jobs created thanks to the stimulus bill and the jobs bill. That is a fact.
March was the 1st month where there was an actual net gain of 162K jobs, as opposed to, say, the 700K jobs lost per month during Bush's last few months of office.
But, again, just so we're clear on this - there have been far more than 162K jobs created under Obama.
Don't tell me about March. How many jobs have been added or lost, net total, since Obama took office?
Remember - i don't think this metric is very important to judging his performance. But since you do, we're gonna do it right.
| 381 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:23:04pm |
re: #380 Aceofwhat?
Don't tell me about March. How many jobs have been added or lost, net total, since Obama took office?
Remember - i don't think this metric is very important to judging his performance. But since you do, we're gonna do it right.
Yes, because a job lost the day after Obama was inaugurated should be attributed to his economic policies.
| 382 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:25:20pm |
re: #380 Aceofwhat?
Ahhh, so you've re-arranged the terms of the debate. How convenient for you.
Yes, like I said, there have been about 4 million jobs lost in the US since he took office. That is true.
My point is we went from losing 6-700K jobs a month to an actual net gain of jobs in a month. Do you understand? Or would you prefer, for the sake of being able to continue calling him a radical socialist out to destroy America (like the leaders in your party are so fond of doing) that we were STILL losing 6-700K jobs per month, as opposed to actually gaining jobs?
| 383 |
garhighway Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:25:37pm |
re: #366 drcordell
Oftentimes is not all of the time. And you still haven't refuted a single point I have made. You've merely continued to try and call me an "elitist" and tried to shame me for calling some poor voters dumb?
Explain to me exactly how someone making $18k a year could ever rationally cast a ballot for the political party that wishes to deny them access to public schools, health care, social security benefits and unemployment benefits?
Money isn't everything. Most people have very deeply held beliefs on some topics that transcend money.
For example: if you believed that abortion was murder (I don't) you might also therefore believe that ridding the world of that evil was more important than getting a fairer economic deal out of your government.
Likewise, liberty interests often outweigh purely economic concerns.
Likewise, for some, being in favor of a strong national defense trumps economic issues.
The GOP of the last 10 years has done a good job of marrying the social conservatives with the economic ones, even though their interests are not always consistent with one another. And so it must be, for a party based purely on lower taxes for the higher brackets would be doomed to electoral failure. I read somewhere once that one of Karl Rove's worst nightmares was the repeal of Roe v Wade, as he feared that in that event a big chunk of his base would re-prioritize their interests.
In any event, this isn't about rationality, nor poor information. It's about people's personal priorities.
| 384 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:25:55pm |
re: #379 drcordell
I would respect you alot more if you would at least argue from an intellectually honest position. You are going to sit here and tell me that the GOP isn't against public education?
Reagan tried to eliminate the entire Department of Education.
The entire GOP just voted against Nixon's Health Insurance reform plan. And need I mention that the GOP was in power for 8 straight years under Bush without taking a single step towards health care reform?
The GOP's alternative budget released by Rep. Ryan explicitly eliminated Social Security. This is a fact.
And unemployment benefits have routinely been held up by GOP Senators since November of 2009. Oh, and the stimulus package that was in large part to fund state unemployment funds? Not a single GOP vote there either.
See, i can play this game too. Republicans tried to reform Social Security. Democrats blocked it. You can give me any 30-year span that you want, start in the most disadvantageous place possible, and i can still beat Social Security returns with a straight index fund.
But you hate poor people, so you want to keep them poor and on Social Security.
See how dumb that sounds? Rather than make that lazy and prejudicial judgment, i prefer to find out why you believe Social Security is a better option.
You just think we want to walk on 'poor people'. Lazy.
| 386 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:26:30pm |
re: #381 drcordell
Yes, because a job lost the day after Obama was inaugurated should be attributed to his economic policies.
For the fourth time, it's Sigma X's scale, not mine. I'm simply forcing them to be consistent. Pay attention.
| 387 |
doubter4444 Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:28:39pm |
re: #133 tradewind
Yeah... Code Pink= freedom fighters in Central America.
I did not know that.
Wow. You really equate the the contras with "freedom fighters"?
I'm old enough to remember the whole thing, and it stunk. From the start.
Oliver North is a traitor to this nation, IMO. At the very least, a lying sack of shit.
| 388 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:29:56pm |
re: #387 doubter4444
I missed that one. Jesus. Yeah, the Contras were not freedom fighters. They were thugs.
| 389 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:30:19pm |
re: #377 Aceofwhat?
I'd love to, but at the risk of sounding argumentative, i don't know which candidates or representatives you're thinking of.
Let's talk "increase profits and decrease benefits". Why do you think that republicans are working to decrease benefits, ad nauseam? What do you mean by "benefits"?
Sigh. Instead of trying to parse terms, would you please just try to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being? I mean really, it shouldn't be that hard. I am using the word "benefits" to mean something that helps people. There are hundreds of years of republican history, and I know for a fact that there have been helpful republicans. Just not the current "party of Hell No" batch. I really can't make it any easier for you. You claim not to be a selfish person and I am giving you plenty of opportunities to prove it. By comparison, there are many democrats that put profits above people. It happens every day.
| 390 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:31:06pm |
re: #382 Sigma_x
Ahhh, so you've re-arranged the terms of the debate. How convenient for you.
Yes, like I said, there have been about 4 million jobs lost in the US since he took office. That is true.
My point is we went from losing 6-700K jobs a month to an actual net gain of jobs in a month. Do you understand? Or would you prefer, for the sake of being able to continue calling him a radical socialist out to destroy America (like the leaders in your party are so fond of doing) that we were STILL losing 6-700K jobs per month, as opposed to actually gaining jobs?
No, you didn't say that there were 4 million jobs lost since he took office, you said that there were 160k jobs added since he took office.
Now that it's been corrected, we can actually discuss it. We are gaining jobs. I do not attribute the gains, aside from government hiring, to any of the bills recently passed.
Inventory margins have been razor-thin for some time, so even a medium uptick in orders caused a large reaction in the supply chain because when your inventory is that low, you re-order what you sold PLUS an additional amount to prevent needless purchasing activity.
That is one of the major phenomena currently driving economic growth. It would have happened even if Palin had become president.
| 391 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:33:04pm |
re: #389 Existential_Donuts
Sigh. Instead of trying to parse terms, would you please just try to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being? I mean really, it shouldn't be that hard. I am using the word "benefits" to mean something that helps people. There are hundreds of years of republican history, and I know for a fact that there have been helpful republicans. Just not the current "party of Hell No" batch. I really can't make it any easier for you. You claim not to be a selfish person and I am giving you plenty of opportunities to prove it. By comparison, there are many democrats that put profits above people. It happens every day.
Sure. What percentage of his income in 2006 did the Cheneys give to charity?
The Obamas?
The Bidens?
let me know...
| 392 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:34:08pm |
re: #383 garhighway
Money isn't everything. Most people have very deeply held beliefs on some topics that transcend money.
For example: if you believed that abortion was murder (I don't) you might also therefore believe that ridding the world of that evil was more important than getting a fairer economic deal out of your government.
Likewise, liberty interests often outweigh purely economic concerns.
Likewise, for some, being in favor of a strong national defense trumps economic issues.
The GOP of the last 10 years has done a good job of marrying the social conservatives with the economic ones, even though their interests are not always consistent with one another. And so it must be, for a party based purely on lower taxes for the higher brackets would be doomed to electoral failure. I read somewhere once that one of Karl Rove's worst nightmares was the repeal of Roe v Wade, as he feared that in that event a big chunk of his base would re-prioritize their interests.
In any event, this isn't about rationality, nor poor information. It's about people's personal priorities.
Except for the fact that their personal priorities are based on mis-information. You gave an excellent explanation, but unfortunately it doesn't match up with the real-life data. Go check out the exit polls. Alabama went overwhelmingly for McCain. Guess what the top issue for 58% of McCain voters was? The economy.
[Link: www.cnn.com...]
| 393 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:34:29pm |
re: #391 Aceofwhat?
Sure. What percentage of his income in 2006 did the Cheneys give to charity?
The Obamas?
The Bidens?
let me know...
This is relevant how?
| 394 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:36:28pm |
re: #390 Aceofwhat?
Yeah, you don't believe that. You know you don't.
This is gonna be my last post on the subject, because I gotta go for a walk with my wife.
So you mean to tell me that if McCain/Palin had been elected, and there was no stimulus bill passed, no jobs bill passed, no unemployment-benefit extensions passed, that we not only wouldn't be still shedding a horrifying # of jobs each month, but that we would also have had a net gain of 162K of jobs in March of this year? Is THAT what you're implying?
Like I said - you don't believe that. (And if you do? Well, I'm not gonna go there... )
| 395 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:36:35pm |
re: #391 Aceofwhat?
Sure. What percentage of his income in 2006 did the Cheneys give to charity?
The Obamas?
The Bidens?
let me know...
Personal donations are not the same as government action. As much as you might hate it, resources are distributed by the federal government to agencies and other entities that use them to address issues, solve problems, fix road, etc. In this context of a federal system of government, what does the GOP stand for? Do they support public education? Do they support defense? Do they stand with corporations or individuals? Please tell me what your party does to make this country better. I can help you if you want.
| 396 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:36:54pm |
re: #389 Existential_Donuts
Sigh. Instead of trying to parse terms, would you please just try to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being? I mean really, it shouldn't be that hard. I am using the word "benefits" to mean something that helps people. There are hundreds of years of republican history, and I know for a fact that there have been helpful republicans. Just not the current "party of Hell No" batch. I really can't make it any easier for you. You claim not to be a selfish person and I am giving you plenty of opportunities to prove it. By comparison, there are many democrats that put profits above people. It happens every day.
here you go...
[Link: www.amazon.com...]
| 397 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:37:07pm |
re: #391 Aceofwhat?
Sure. What percentage of his income in 2006 did the Cheneys give to charity?
The Obamas?
The Bidens?
let me know...
So individual rich people's charitable donations are a valid substitute for the policies they espouse and those policies' effects. Pretty logical, especially for a party that thinks hacking scientific-related emails from one server disproves global research spanning decades. "There is no consensus that can't be completely replaced by isolated data points if you yell loud enough."
| 398 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:37:45pm |
re: #392 drcordell
Except for the fact that their personal priorities are based on mis-information. You gave an excellent explanation, but unfortunately it doesn't match up with the real-life data. Go check out the exit polls. Alabama went overwhelmingly for McCain. Guess what the top issue for 58% of McCain voters was? The economy.
[Link: www.cnn.com...]
right. if you don't get it, they must have been misinformed.
i have an extra tinfoil hat you can borrow...so those eeevil rich people don't come over and misinform you...
| 399 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:38:01pm |
re: #394 Sigma_x
Yeah, you don't believe that. You know you don't.
This is gonna be my last post on the subject, because I gotta go for a walk with my wife.
So you mean to tell me that if McCain/Palin had been elected, and there was no stimulus bill passed, no jobs bill passed, no unemployment-benefit extensions passed, that we not only wouldn't be still shedding a horrifying # of jobs each month, but that we would also have had a net gain of 162K of jobs in March of this year? Is THAT what you're implying?
Like I said - you don't believe that. (And if you do? Well, I'm not gonna go there... )
Your fundamental premise is completely wrong here. If McCain/Palin had been elected, the first thing they would have done is pass a stimulus bill. Which the GOP would have voted for overwhelmingly, because it would have been McCain's bill and not BlackHitler's.
| 400 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:38:10pm |
re: #390 Aceofwhat?
Oh, and I'm not arguing with you about inventories being a major factor in GDP and this a lot of this artificial growth. Just so we're clear.
| 401 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:38:13pm |
re: #397 torrentprime
So individual rich people's charitable donations are a valid substitute for the policies they espouse and those policies' effects. Pretty logical, especially for a party that thinks hacking scientific-related emails from one server disproves global research spanning decades. "There is no consensus that can't be completely replaced by isolated data points if you yell loud enough."
love ya, Torrent!
| 402 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:38:34pm |
re: #399 drcordell
Your fundamental premise is completely wrong here. If McCain/Palin had been elected, the first thing they would have done is pass a stimulus bill. Which the GOP would have voted for overwhelmingly, because it would have been McCain's bill and not BlackHitler's.
Awesome.
| 403 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:39:00pm |
re: #398 Aceofwhat?
right. if you don't get it, they must have been misinformed.
i have an extra tinfoil hat you can borrow...so those eeevil rich people don't come over and misinform you...
So let me ask you this, since you think I'm some sort of conspiracist loon. Why does Fox News purposefully distort Obama's policies on just about everything? You think it's not for profit?
| 404 |
garhighway Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:39:08pm |
re: #392 drcordell
Except for the fact that their personal priorities are based on mis-information. You gave an excellent explanation, but unfortunately it doesn't match up with the real-life data. Go check out the exit polls. Alabama went overwhelmingly for McCain. Guess what the top issue for 58% of McCain voters was? The economy.
[Link: www.cnn.com...]
I suspect there is some ideology at work there, too. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you don't believe Grover Norquist.
| 405 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:39:12pm |
I swear to god I used to want to start a punk band and call it Black Hitler. Back when I was a teenager.
| 406 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:39:39pm |
re: #396 Aceofwhat?
here you go...
[Link: www.amazon.com...]
You have read this book and agree with its thesis? How are compassionate conservatives viewed in today's GOP? If the geniuses at Freerepublic or Hot Air are to believed, compassionate conservatives is just another name for liberal. Where does a compassionate conservative get his or her representation in today's world?
| 407 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:39:52pm |
re: #395 Existential_Donuts
Personal donations are not the same as government action. As much as you might hate it, resources are distributed by the federal government to agencies and other entities that use them to address issues, solve problems, fix road, etc. In this context of a federal system of government, what does the GOP stand for? Do they support public education? Do they support defense? Do they stand with corporations or individuals? Please tell me what your party does to make this country better. I can help you if you want.
Personal donations are not an indication of unselfishness? uhhh...ok.
Here's another take. Welfare Reform Act...1990's. Good outcome or bad outcome, generally speaking?
| 408 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:41:27pm |
re: #394 Sigma_x
i'm getting kind of of calling you out, but can you please answer my post to you? Please hurry, I'm coming down.
| 409 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:41:37pm |
re: #404 garhighway
I suspect there is some ideology at work there, too. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you don't believe Grover Norquist.
Like I said before, misinformation. It's really easy to conform to a rigid conservative ideology when your only feedback is coming from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Grover Norquist hates taxes, and for most of these people Obama cut their taxes. Except they voted against him because they believed he was going to raise taxes. Because they were mis-informed.
| 410 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:41:59pm |
re: #399 drcordell
Your fundamental premise is completely wrong here. If McCain/Palin had been elected, the first thing they would have done is pass a stimulus bill. Which the GOP would have voted for overwhelmingly, because it would have been McCain's bill and not BlackHitler's.
Perhaps one not so overloaded with pork? Yes, that would have been an improvement over the current one. Is it disdain for the poor or stupidity which makes me believe the way that i do?
By the way, please enjoy your walk. Best wishes to you and your wife.
| 411 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:42:08pm |
re: #408 Obdicut
i'm getting kind of of calling you out, but can you please answer my post to you? Please hurry, I'm coming down.
I get it. I get it. I actually DID answer you in another post. Look through them.
| 412 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:42:38pm |
re: #407 Aceofwhat?
Personal donations are not an indication of unselfishness? uhhh...ok.
Here's another take. Welfare Reform Act...1990's. Good outcome or bad outcome, generally speaking?
Ahh, progress. I think if you set aside the politics of the time, the welfare reform act is a beautiful example of working together. And no, personal donations by elected officials are not indicative of general unselfishness. You know as well as I do that charitable donations are just another check box on the list of things that need to happen to get elected.
| 413 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:42:53pm |
| 414 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:43:45pm |
re: #411 Sigma_x
I get it. I get it. I actually DID answer you in another post. Look through them.
I recognized that, and posted back to you. That's the second time I've said this, too.
It really is seeming to me that you'd rather have a fight with someone than a discussion. And that's very undude.
| 415 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:44:11pm |
re: #409 drcordell
Like I said before, misinformation. It's really easy to conform to a rigid conservative ideology when your only feedback is coming from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Grover Norquist hates taxes, and for most of these people Obama cut their taxes. Except they voted against him because they believed he was going to raise taxes. Because they were mis-informed.
in short, you disagree with garhighway - if one is poor, one believes ___ and conforms because they were misinformed.
i don't know whether you intend for this to be an incredibly arrogant, paranoid and elitist view of the situation. unfortunately, that's what it seems like. but hey - i'm just out here trying to misinform poor people...
| 416 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:44:20pm |
Undude? What didn't I answer? I'll answer it now. I would never want to be "un-dudely."
| 417 |
drcordell Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:44:29pm |
re: #410 Aceofwhat?
Perhaps one not so overloaded with pork? Yes, that would have been an improvement over the current one. Is it disdain for the poor or stupidity which makes me believe the way that i do?
By the way, please enjoy your walk. Best wishes to you and your wife.
Overloaded with pork. Right. Like the one-third of the bill that was comprised of corporate tax-cuts? Or perhaps the "pork" that was spent in specific Congressional districts to rebuild terrible infrastructure? By definition any of the stimulus spending that didn't go towards tax cuts or state deficits was "pork." That was the entire point of the bill, give districts money for public projects that will create jobs. Duh.
| 418 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:46:49pm |
re: #416 Sigma_x
Sigh.
Here's the post, which I, again, pointed out to you once already, 299:
I'm not sure why you're fuzzy on it, when I gave a clear example. Let me give you one that can occur in the present day.
Do you think that someone who, say, is going to inherit a house worth many, many millions of dollars but who votes for the inheritance tax to go up is voting against their economic self interests? And, if you do think so, do you agree that that could be a good action from a good motive, out of consideration that they didn't really do anything to earn that house and therefore high taxes on it are appropriate?
And again, are you still comfortable with saying that I'm on acid? When I have done acid, I've tended to post on the internet a hell of a lot less. One time I thought I was naked when I wasn't. That made for odd conversations.
| 419 |
garhighway Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:47:05pm |
re: #409 drcordell
Like I said before, misinformation. It's really easy to conform to a rigid conservative ideology when your only feedback is coming from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Grover Norquist hates taxes, and for most of these people Obama cut their taxes. Except they voted against him because they believed he was going to raise taxes. Because they were mis-informed.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that some may genuinely believe that the Grover Norquist way of running an economy is better long-term for everyone. They may subscribe (perhaps on an intuitive level) to the Club for Growth economic world view. And therefore they don't think it is about what the next administration will do to THEIR taxes.
Hell, I'm the same way. I knew when I voted for BHO that he would raise mine (I'm in one of those brackets) and I voted for him anyway, because I thought his way of running the economy makes more sense for us as a society.
At any rate, I'm off. I have theater tickets. It's what elitists do.
| 420 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:47:40pm |
re: #417 drcordell
On that, Cordell, I can agree with you. Pork-barrel is a nearly meaningless term in modern politics.
| 421 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:47:45pm |
re: #412 Existential_Donuts
Ahh, progress. I think if you set aside the politics of the time, the welfare reform act is a beautiful example of working together. And no, personal donations by elected officials are not indicative of general unselfishness. You know as well as I do that charitable donations are just another check box on the list of things that need to happen to get elected.
Ok. Good. In general, with a few exceptions, it was a primarily Republican effort that received a little Democratic help and definitely got help from Clinton.
Credit where due.
So what about the deafening cries from the '90s that this was Republican's evil triumph over the poor? It's literally All. We. Heard.
I mean, how can welfare reform possibly HELP the poor if we're reducing benefits? Truly, it boggles the mind.
(PS - i picked 2006 because Cheney wasn't running for any office, had nothing to prove. You should read Arthur Brooks sometime...
| 422 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:48:36pm |
re: #407 Aceofwhat?
Personal donations are not an indication of unselfishness? uhhh...ok.
Donating a million dollars while passing bills that will cost those same recipients billions is not unselfish, no.
I love that Ace is actually trying to debate GOP's policy effects on the world by relying on politicians' donation records rather than how GOP policies actually affect the people.
"Did your policies help the average American citizen?"
"No, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night and give to a charity."
| 423 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:49:21pm |
re: #418 Obdicut
Sigh.
Here's the post, which I, again, pointed out to you once already, 299:
I'm not sure why you're fuzzy on it, when I gave a clear example. Let me give you one that can occur in the present day.
Do you think that someone who, say, is going to inherit a house worth many, many millions of dollars but who votes for the inheritance tax to go up is voting against their economic self interests? And, if you do think so, do you agree that that could be a good action from a good motive, out of consideration that they didn't really do anything to earn that house and therefore high taxes on it are appropriate?
And again, are you still comfortable with saying that I'm on acid? When I have done acid, I've tended to post on the internet a hell of a lot less. One time I thought I was naked when I wasn't. That made for odd conversations.
You uncovered a basic paradox of life. From the liberal perspective, of course the rich guy should vote to spend more of his money. But them, why would a poor person vote to SAVE him money?
| 424 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:49:45pm |
re: #413 Obdicut
Highly mixed.
[Link: www.urban.org...]
But not evil. As opposed to the charges of evil at the time. Or as opposed to the charges of selfishness leveled here.
(charges which you've already denied on conservatives' behalf, i realize - and credited - )
| 425 |
Sigma_x Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:51:07pm |
re: #418 Obdicut
Oh, no - I completely agree. That's a great example. One I wish more republicans would go along with (or ANY republicans, really.)
But someone else on this thread said it a lot better than I could of - when you got these people voting for so-and-so because they want their taxes to go down, when in fact the very people that they're voting for are not only gonna make their taxes go up, but cut the taxes of people who make a lot more money than them (forget the fact that the person they're voting against has already lowered their taxes; they've just been duped into believing the inverse) then THAT is not an example of the kind you speak of.
And now I feel like I'M on acid. Good job.
| 426 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:51:42pm |
re: #422 torrentprime
Donating a million dollars while passing bills that will cost those same recipients billions is not unselfish, no.
I love that Ace is actually trying to debate GOP's policy effects on the world by relying on politicians' donation records rather than how GOP policies actually affect the people.
"Did your policies help the average American citizen?"
"No, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night and give to a charity."
Mind you, Torrent Dear, this was the original request:
Instead of trying to parse terms, would you please just try to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being?
Would you now like to change your statement? Did i not fulfill the terms of the request?
| 427 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:51:49pm |
re: #396 Aceofwhat?
here you go...
[Link: www.amazon.com...]
Still waiting to hear from you on whether you read the book you trotted out as an example of unselfishness, plus your take on the current state of compassionate conservatism.
| 429 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:53:09pm |
re: #423 Existential_Donuts
You uncovered a basic paradox of life. From the liberal perspective, of course the rich guy should vote to spend more of his money. But them, why would a poor person vote to SAVE him money?
Your inability to answer that for yourself does not mean that no cogent answer exists, and therefore only selfishness remains. Before i answer it for you, i want to point out that not being able to answer a question does not mean there is no good answer to the question.
Isn't it arrogant to believe otherwise? If you can't find the answer, there is no good answer?
| 430 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:54:12pm |
re: #429 Aceofwhat?
Your inability to answer that for yourself does not mean that no cogent answer exists, and therefore only selfishness remains. Before i answer it for you, i want to point out that not being able to answer a question does not mean there is no good answer to the question.
Isn't it arrogant to believe otherwise? If you can't find the answer, there is no good answer?
Of course there is no answer to the question. That's why its a paradox.
| 431 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:54:33pm |
re: #426 Aceofwhat?
Mind you, Torrent Dear, this was the original request:
Instead of trying to parse terms, would you please just try to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being?Would you now like to change your statement? Did i not fulfill the terms of the request?
Dear, Wonderful, Kind, 419-Imitating Ace,
Are you really content that you've successfully defended against the general selfishness of GOP policies by citing a bipartisan policy achievement?
Yours in Christ,
Torrent
| 432 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:55:12pm |
re: #430 Existential_Donuts
Of course there is no answer to the question. That's why its a paradox.
Answer it for me. I am dying to hear it. Really. Inform me.
| 433 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:56:17pm |
re: #427 Existential_Donuts
Still waiting to hear from you on whether you read the book you trotted out as an example of unselfishness, plus your take on the current state of compassionate conservatism.
Absolutely. You asked this question:
Instead of trying to parse terms, would you please just try to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being?
I linked to a book which shows that, on average, republicans do more to help human beings.
Now, you'll rarely hear me talk in those terms, because i think it's a lot more complex than that. I don't think that "republicans do more to help human beings" is an accurate blanket statement.
But you can't seem to find ONE TIME that a republican has tried to help another human being. So, fine. I linked a book demonstrating how religious beliefs, political persuasions, and a few other key variables are statistically significant to the question of 'how much does a person donate to charity'?
I believe i've more than answered your question. Thanks for having so much faith in half of your country.
| 434 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:56:55pm |
| 435 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:57:08pm |
re: #430 Existential_Donuts
Of course there is no answer to the question. That's why its a paradox.
Are you going to give me the rundown of the book you read? I am pretty sure that you were scrambling for ANYTHING to refute me, and you came across that book. Not surprising. I apologize if I'm wrong. How about your answer to the ideological paradox? Compassionate conservatism? Anything?
| 436 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:57:23pm |
re: #425 Sigma_x
Then why did you previously completely disagree when I made that point, and tell me that I sounded like I was on acid?
Voting against your economic self-interest can come from voting your conscience, is what I said, and you mocked and derided that position.
I think that you thought I was a conservative, and reflexively interpreted my position from that lens. This should, at the very least, give you pause in the way that you evaluate the positions of those you're talking to.
You've made some perfectly decent points here. You've also buried them under personal invective, assaults on orthography, and strutting.
Yes, a lot of people vote against their economic self-interest becaues they don't understand that what they're voting for is against their economic self-interest. However, a lot of people voting for their economic self-interest also don't know what their self-interest is.
There are two things: knowledge of what your self-interest actually is, and voting in favor of it. The latter is unimportant, since there are lots of good reasons to vote against your self-interest, like compassion and wisdom. The former is important. Your argument largely comingles the two in a way that's not useful.
| 437 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:58:14pm |
re: #429 Aceofwhat?
Your inability to answer that for yourself does not mean that no cogent answer exists, and therefore only selfishness remains. Before i answer it for you, i want to point out that not being able to answer a question does not mean there is no good answer to the question.
Isn't it arrogant to believe otherwise? If you can't find the answer, there is no good answer?
So you haven't offered an answer, but since the infinite universe could possibly contain an answer, we must assume that one exists and isn't selfish. And that possibility precludes the need to analyze the actual results of GOP policies.
| 438 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:58:52pm |
re: #431 torrentprime
Dear, Wonderful, Kind, 419-Imitating Ace,
Are you really content that you've successfully defended against the general selfishness of GOP policies by citing a bipartisan policy achievement?Yours in Christ,
Torrent
heh. good stuff.
I would call this a primarily republican achievement, with enough bipartisan and presidential support to get it passed.
It's a great example of a republican goal which was feted as proof of their disdain for the poor by those who could not understand why it was believed to actually be a good solution for the poor.
Not understanding the goal of someone else does not mean their goal is selfish.
| 439 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 2:59:10pm |
re: #435 Existential_Donuts
Are you going to give me the rundown of the book you read? I am pretty sure that you were scrambling for ANYTHING to refute me, and you came across that book. Not surprising. I apologize if I'm wrong. How about your answer to the ideological paradox? Compassionate conservatism? Anything?
sorry, hang on. typing quickly.
| 440 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:02:10pm |
re: #432 Existential_Donuts
Answer it for me. I am dying to hear it. Really. Inform me.
The best answer is that a surprisingly large percentage of those who are currently "poor" do not expect to be in the same economic stratum in the future.
An addendum to that answer is that a surprisingly large percentage of those who are currently "poor" are not always convinced that they require ever more assistance from their wealthier citizens.
Combined, you find a subgroup of "poor" who are voting not to take more money from the wealthier through a combination of optimism and sense of fair play.
That is why the question is not a paradox. Your inability to discover these answers did not mean they didn't exist. This isn't Schrodinger's Politik.
| 441 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:03:32pm |
re: #437 torrentprime
So you haven't offered an answer, but since the infinite universe could possibly contain an answer, we must assume that one exists and isn't selfish. And that possibility precludes the need to analyze the actual results of GOP policies.
Answer offered.
And when the question is "are you acting selfishly, oh republicans", it can't be THAT hard to look for the answer. It's not string theory, mon cher ami...
| 442 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:03:57pm |
re: #440 Aceofwhat?
Combined, you find a subgroup of "poor" who are voting not to take more money from the wealthier through a combination of optimism and sense of fair play.
This point becomes less impressive when you ask the same group of people whether they currently depend on the government for much. That is a point that Cordell and Sigma_X have very strongly in their favor. There is the "We were on food stamps, did anyone help us out? No!" kind of person.
| 443 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:03:58pm |
re: #421 Aceofwhat?
Ok. Good. In general, with a few exceptions, it was a primarily Republican effort that received a little Democratic help and definitely got help from Clinton.
Credit where due.
So what about the deafening cries from the '90s that this was Republican's evil triumph over the poor? It's literally All. We. Heard.
I mean, how can welfare reform possibly HELP the poor if we're reducing benefits? Truly, it boggles the mind.
(PS - i picked 2006 because Cheney wasn't running for any office, had nothing to prove. You should read Arthur Brooks sometime...
Because welfare needed reforming. Where is the problem? People are better served by a more efficient system, right? That is different than the GOP as an entity working for the corporations and against the individual. I thought the GOP was all about the individual.
| 444 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:04:00pm |
re: #438 Aceofwhat?
heh. good stuff.
I would call this a primarily republican achievement
I'm sure you would.
| 445 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:04:19pm |
re: #436 Obdicut
Then why did you previously completely disagree when I made that point, and tell me that I sounded like I was on acid?
Voting against your economic self-interest can come from voting your conscience, is what I said, and you mocked and derided that position.
I think that you thought I was a conservative, and reflexively interpreted my position from that lens. This should, at the very least, give you pause in the way that you evaluate the positions of those you're talking to.
You've made some perfectly decent points here. You've also buried them under personal invective, assaults on orthography, and strutting.
Yes, a lot of people vote against their economic self-interest becaues they don't understand that what they're voting for is against their economic self-interest. However, a lot of people voting for their economic self-interest also don't know what their self-interest is.
There are two things: knowledge of what your self-interest actually is, and voting in favor of it. The latter is unimportant, since there are lots of good reasons to vote against your self-interest, like compassion and wisdom. The former is important. Your argument largely comingles the two in a way that's not useful.
agree completely
| 446 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:06:37pm |
re: #441 Aceofwhat?
Answer offered.
And when the question is "are you acting selfishly, oh republicans", it can't be THAT hard to look for the answer. It's not string theory, mon cher ami...
You're absolutely right; it's not hard to look at the effects of GOP policies. It may not be as pleasant for you as quoting books disdained by modern conservatives, looking at bipartisan policy achievements, or comparing rich people's donation records, but I will applaud your efforts to do so once those efforts, you know, start.
| 447 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:06:40pm |
re: #442 Obdicut
This point becomes less impressive when you ask the same group of people whether they currently depend on the government for much. That is a point that Cordell and Sigma_X have very strongly in their favor. There is the "We were on food stamps, did anyone help us out? No!" kind of person.
That person most certainly exists. That's why i said 'subgroup'.
Also, remember that i am not talking about an elimination of income redistribution. There are plenty of people who currently depend on the government (i.e. their fellow citizens) for some things but do not believe that they need MORE...thus they might not vote to increase the amount taken from the wealthier.
That, i believe, directly answers the question that our friend could not answer for themself...
| 448 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:07:55pm |
re: #446 torrentprime
You're absolutely right; it's not hard to look at the effects of GOP policies. It may not be as pleasant for you as quoting books disdained by modern conservatives, looking at bipartisan policy achievements, or comparing rich people's donation records, but I will applaud your efforts to do so once those efforts, you know, start.
Now, now, my churlish friend. Welfare reform passed with some bipartisan support. AFAIK, calling it a "bipartisan effort" stretches the truth like a good piece of taffy.
(actually, i'm not a huge taffy fan. give me chocolate.)
| 449 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:08:47pm |
re: #446 torrentprime
You're absolutely right; it's not hard to look at the effects of GOP policies. It may not be as pleasant for you as quoting books disdained by modern conservatives, looking at bipartisan policy achievements, or comparing rich people's donation records, but I will applaud your efforts to do so once those efforts, you know, start.
We can start as soon as people stop asking me for ONE THING that a republican has done to help another human being.
(not that you have ever asked such a thing...i can only answer the questions asked...)
| 450 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:10:14pm |
re: #447 Aceofwhat?
Putting it in terms of money being taken from one group and given to another is begging the question, you know. That is a perspective that is highly colored to produce a certain emotional reaction-- not that I'm saying you're doing it disingenously.
A pragmatist like myself says that i support more spending, say, for physician assistant and nurse practitioner training because it's better for the nation. It would not be taking money from the rich to give to the poor-- it would be improving the country as a whole.
Framing it in terms of wealth distribution in the way you did is not at all a neutral presentation.
| 451 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:10:18pm |
re: #440 Aceofwhat?
The best answer is that a surprisingly large percentage of those who are currently "poor" do not expect to be in the same economic stratum in the future.
An addendum to that answer is that a surprisingly large percentage of those who are currently "poor" are not always convinced that they require ever more assistance from their wealthier citizens.
Combined, you find a subgroup of "poor" who are voting not to take more money from the wealthier through a combination of optimism and sense of fair play.
That is why the question is not a paradox. Your inability to discover these answers did not mean they didn't exist. This isn't Schrodinger's Politik.
I see what your point is, but that wasn't the question. What is the motivation for a poor person to vote to help a rich person? It CAN be answered in ideological terms. It can be argued that the poor person is a fan of the trickle down theory and that eventually he will see a benefit from helping a rich person. But from my perspective, that's quite a bank shot. I think it's more likely that the poor person will choose to help the rich person because of other reasons. For social or ideological reasons. That's the ONLY reason I can think of for people voting against their own interests.
| 452 |
torrentprime Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:12:31pm |
re: #448 Aceofwhat?
Now, now, my churlish friend. Welfare reform passed with some bipartisan support. AFAIK, calling it a "bipartisan effort" stretches the truth like a good piece of taffy.
(actually, i'm not a huge taffy fan. give me chocolate.)
Since no one but you ever used the phrase "bipartisan effort" on this thread, who is doing the stretching?
It's a bad sad how you rely on insults to avoid direct answers, but I understand - I watch FOX news too.
| 453 |
Existential_Donuts Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:14:35pm |
re: #452 torrentprime
Since no one but you ever used the phrase "bipartisan effort" on this thread, who is doing the stretching?
It's a bad sad how you rely on insults to avoid direct answers, but I understand - I watch FOX news too.
They don't like to be cornered, that's for sure. I wish I could find ONE conservative that will just admit there is a degree of selfishness in their ideology. It would save keystrokes and bandwidth.
| 454 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:24:06pm |
re: #452 torrentprime
Since no one but you ever used the phrase "bipartisan effort" on this thread, who is doing the stretching?
It's a bad sad how you rely on insults to avoid direct answers, but I understand - I watch FOX news too.
Did i say that? I could have sworn that i said
"In general, with a few exceptions, it was a primarily Republican effort that received a little Democratic help and definitely got help from Clinton."
And i'm sorry if i insulted you - i've meant everything in good-natured humor...i thought "churlish friend" was ribbing. I'm truly sorry if it offended you.
That's why i started with "love ya, Torrent"...i wanted to stay positive and let you know that i had no intent to get personal or uncivil.
Please, forgive me-
| 455 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:27:32pm |
re: #451 Existential_Donuts
I see what your point is, but that wasn't the question. What is the motivation for a poor person to vote to help a rich person? It CAN be answered in ideological terms. It can be argued that the poor person is a fan of the trickle down theory and that eventually he will see a benefit from helping a rich person. But from my perspective, that's quite a bank shot. I think it's more likely that the poor person will choose to help the rich person because of other reasons. For social or ideological reasons. That's the ONLY reason I can think of for people voting against their own interests.
What do you mean by "help a rich person"? You mean, why would a poor person vote against raising taxes they won't pay themselves?
I don't see that as "helping a rich person". I see that as "believing that there are already enough taxes, whether or not one expects to be on the short-term hook for paying them".
And what do you mean by 'ideological reasons'? I want to make sure i understand you here.
(ed - Obdicut - is that a better, more levelheaded description than 'income redistribution'? I'm not trying to bait anyone.)
| 456 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:31:05pm |
re: #443 Existential_Donuts
Because welfare needed reforming. Where is the problem? People are better served by a more efficient system, right? That is different than the GOP as an entity working for the corporations and against the individual. I thought the GOP was all about the individual.
Do you really know what the Welfare Reform Act accomplished, as opposed to what most Democrats shrieked?
The problem is that this is a prime example of "republican selfishness" turned into "oh, well of course it needed to be reformed". Those unable to understand how it might not be evil called it "selfishness".
Whether one believes that legislation was mildly or wildly effective, good luck convincing most Democrats at the time that it was proffered in good faith by the Republicans.
Yet here we are again...
| 457 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:32:22pm |
oh, and sorry for the delay a few minutes ago. laptop froze.
| 458 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:32:27pm |
re: #455 Aceofwhat?
It's more levelheaded, but still, as a pragmatist, is less than useful. "enough taxes" isn't a meaningful statement.
What we're attempting to debate is whether the tax policy and the spending policy of the government combined work out to economic good for the citizens. Either part can fail; you can have a good program supported by a counterproductive tax or a tax that creates another problem. You can have a poor program supported by a tax that doesn't negatively affect the economy.
What we want is to have programs that work achieving things that we want, paid for by taxes that operate on a level that doesn't depress the economy and doesn't work against us. "Enough taxes" leads to the question "enough for what?" inevitably.
| 459 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:37:13pm |
re: #458 Obdicut
that's fine. but any reasonable budget, private or public, has to have some concept of 'enough'. "Enough" taxes will do what you said - achieve what we want, without depressing the economy. Then reasonable people disagree on what "we want" and what will "depress the economy". Thus we debate. All good.
It's not difficult for me to conceive why someone who doesn't currently pay taxes due to a lower income doesn't think that more taxes is automatically a good thing. I know you agree. It seems that Existential simply can't understand that different people have different thresholds for what they believe will "depress the economy", and voting against taxes for that reason is not "voting to help the rich". This class stuff, really, it's not helping me shy away from terms like "income redistribution".
| 460 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:41:21pm |
re: #459 Aceofwhat?
It seems that Existential simply can't understand that different people have different thresholds for what they believe will "depress the economy", and voting against taxes for that reason is not "voting to help the rich". This class stuff, really, it's not helping me shy away from terms like "income redistribution".
Well, the current system over the past twenty years has been a system of income distribution, and we can see this because wealth has continued to be concentrated more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer.
Given that in capitalism having capital and the ability to use it is a huge advantage, any economy that does not in some way penalize or tax the acquisition of wealth will inevitably lead to wealth being concentrated in the hands of the ubercapitalists-- even if who those are change by generation. And when you allow inhuman entities to keep wealth-- corporations-- that exaggerates the effect hugely.
So if you want to go the 'income redistribution road', feel free, but make sure to include that income redistribution under the current system is in favor of the wealthy.
| 461 |
prairiefire Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:43:42pm |
re: #459 Aceofwhat?
Hi Ace, to respond to a thread yesterday or so regarding the passing of local tax increases Tuesday~~many small local papers' editorials were for them. I can't find any analysis to quote.
Mid-West folks are practical (a former Cleve guy knows that!). The need must have been evident.
| 462 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:45:22pm |
re: #460 Obdicut
Well, the current system over the past twenty years has been a system of income distribution, and we can see this because wealth has continued to be concentrated more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer.
Given that in capitalism having capital and the ability to use it is a huge advantage, any economy that does not in some way penalize or tax the acquisition of wealth will inevitably lead to wealth being concentrated in the hands of the ubercapitalists-- even if who those are change by generation. And when you allow inhuman entities to keep wealth-- corporations-- that exaggerates the effect hugely.
So if you want to go the 'income redistribution road', feel free, but make sure to include that income redistribution under the current system is in favor of the wealthy.
I don't really want to go there, thus my shying away once you pointed out that i was on that road, but neither do i think it's the government's job to keep this all balanced. I'll bet you wouldn't totally disagree with my belief that the government is better off making sure that those with less and the talent/ethic to achieve have a chance to achieve.
When people start talk about blatant poor-rich transfers, i think they're talking about redistribution. Sometimes i take people at their word on purpose...they should choose their words better if they don't like where it leads them;)
| 463 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:48:23pm |
re: #461 prairiefire
Hi Ace, to respond to a thread yesterday or so regarding the passing of local tax increases Tuesday~~many small local papers' editorials were for them. I can't find any analysis to quote.
Mid-West folks are practical (a former Cleve guy knows that!). The need must have been evident.
You're a peach for remembering my question! I read here that the chambers of commerce were on board...since they're usually the first to object, I read that as an indication that the taxes really were perceived as necessary across the board.
(i have no idea if that newspaper is anywhere near you but it was one of the clearest articles i could find this morning)
| 464 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:49:10pm |
re: #462 Aceofwhat?
I don't really want to go there, thus my shying away once you pointed out that i was on that road, but neither do i think it's the government's job to keep this all balanced.
If it doesn't stay balanced in some way, society ends. Argentina is good demonstration of that. I think it is the government's job to make sure that things do not collapse.
'll bet you wouldn't totally disagree with my belief that the government is better off making sure that those with less and the talent/ethic to achieve have a chance to achieve.
Not really. I think, economically, society's main job is to take care of the weakest and most ill-suited to achieve are protected from misery and death.
I think that this is best done by helping people to achieve. But if the system that we have to allow people to achieve also grinds the weak under its heels, its anathema to me.
| 465 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:55:57pm |
re: #464 Obdicut
Not really. I think, economically, society's main job is to take care of the weakest and most ill-suited to achieve are protected from misery and death.
I think that this is best done by helping people to achieve. But if the system that we have to allow people to achieve also grinds the weak under its heels, its anathema to me.
Not different from what i thought you'd say. I don't believe that a system which truly helps people to achieve also allows grinding. So i think we agree in principle and simply disagree on many of the methods.
I think it is the government's job to make sure that things do not collapse.
Agree there. Which means we probably only disagree on the degree to which the government needs to balance things to prevent collapse. Again, plenty of common ground to work with while we disagree on particulars.
good stuff.
| 466 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 3:59:14pm |
re: #465 Aceofwhat?
Not different from what i thought you'd say. I don't believe that a system which truly helps people to achieve also allows grinding. So i think we agree in principle and simply disagree on many of the methods.
Yep. But in the end you have to bring it down to the level where a blind child who is being raised by illiterate, abusive is going to have a chance at achievement, or at least a chance to not die. That is not an easy goal to achieve through indirect means.
Agree there. Which means we probably only disagree on the degree to which the government needs to balance things to prevent collapse. Again, plenty of common ground to work with while we disagree on particulars.
Yep. I think my main suggestion-- that every bill should have a metric that it is tested against, that is measured after the passage of the bill, would go to great lengths to giving us data that we desperately need: What government programs actually work, and which are useless or counterproductive?
W
| 467 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 4:01:45pm |
re: #466 Obdicut
Yep. I think my main suggestion-- that every bill should have a metric that it is tested against, that is measured after the passage of the bill, would go to great lengths to giving us data that we desperately need: What government programs actually work, and which are useless or counterproductive?
W
Couldn't agree more. All i care about are outcomes. I'd gladly be proven wrong on every single idea i've ever held if it meant we'd settled on the best outcomes.
And are you signing your posts in honor of our former prez/
| 468 |
Obdicut Fri, Apr 9, 2010 4:02:59pm |
re: #467 Aceofwhat?
No, in order of Wil Wright.
I have no clue how that W got there. Redestribute it, stat.
| 469 |
Aceofwhat? Fri, Apr 9, 2010 4:03:45pm |
re: #468 Obdicut
No, in order of Wil Wright.
I have no clue how that W got there. Redestribute it, stat.
Freud disagrees/
| 470 |
swamprat Fri, Apr 9, 2010 8:51:45pm |
re: #114 drcordell
1 It's different when the President is the one committing the treason.
2 Also, Bush wasn't Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Presidency.
WTF;
Please explain;
Followup question;
How are you any different than the nutjobs who claimed Bush was not elected and that his war(s) were treasonous and constituted an impeachable offense.
Additional followup question;
Does your mother know you are this stupid?
Dear God I hope you are kidding.
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
6 days ago
Views: 747 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,316 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 413 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1- Pictures From Today’s Exhibition of Paintings Done by Jane LilienthalPROPS TO MICHELE AND SAGEHEN FOR CATCHING THE SPELLING ERROR IN THE TITLE THAT MY DIABETIC EYES COULDN'T CATCH I wanted to share pictures of the art show I visited today. The portraits were created by the mother of my ...Joe Bacon ✅
3 weeks ago
Views: 491 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 11 
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
4 weeks ago
Views: 603 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 9
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
4 weeks ago
Views: 591 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 581 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5- A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...KGxvi
4 weeks ago
Views: 474 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 121 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 283 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
