15
   

Another SF Meet?

 
 
blatham
 
  6  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 03:38 pm
But, in all seriousness (I'm back to my norm now) how on earth, dear george, could this modern party hold your allegiance?

We could talk women's secretions. We could talk Romney as a jello creature. We could talk voter suppression. We could talk the much-expanded influence of the southern religious contingent within the party and movement. We could talk about how some oppressive situation where a handful of billionaires effectively control much of the political processes of the nation is a very fine thing indeed whereas any move to curtail such is clearly an assault on liberty. We could talk enforced vaginal probes where neither the woman nor her doctor deem the procedure a splendid thing. We could talk on the matter of how every nation in what we term "the free world" manage to have some form of government involvement in healthcare delivery and insurance and yet might still be properly defined as members of the free world. We might discuss the policy proposals of people like Paul Ryan and the shape of governance that will result if those plans were carried to fruition and how such a model has no precedent anywhere in the free world and yet adherents deem such a thing "traditional" and absolutely not as "radical".

How on earth, how on bloody earth, could you maintain allegiance given all of this?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 03:40 pm
@blatham,
Go, Bernie, go!
Oh, hi, George.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 04:02 pm
@blatham,
Good summary, but I would also add voter suppression.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:16 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

How on earth, how on bloody earth, could you maintain allegiance given all of this?


The spectical of the current alternative with its interesting combination of imneptitude; contempt for the intelligence of the people; and aggressive presumption of executive power makes it fairly easy. Moreover the "progressive" state of mind, which presumes that every identifiable social or economic difficulty requires a government-run solution, is, in my view a threat to our freedom and contrary to the principles that made this country what it is.

I'm also weary of Obama's vacuous rhetoric and constasnt campaigning.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:34 pm
@georgeob1,
I know you can do better than that, George. I just know it.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:58 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Perhaps you just don't understand.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:43 pm
@blatham,
C'mon Bro. None of that matters, because of one thing: tax cuts for the wealthy. It's a joke to pretend that any other detail matters to modern Republicans. All they care about is more cash in their pockets, period, and the Devil take the hindmost.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 06:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
On what basis can you claim to know that ?

I can think of many other far more compelling issues including;
1. the expansion of entitlementrs that are already far exceeding their projected costs when enacted and the absense of any credible plan to contain our rapidly increasing deficits.
2. A Federal health care program that I (and many others) believe will degrade the quality of health care, increase the unwanted intrusion of the Federal bureaucracy in the personal affairs of everyone, and if past is precedent significantly increase the cost to everyone.
3. Inept and intrusive Federal management of economic issues that have already created the slowest recovery from a cyclic recession in our history. With a second Obama term this will likely get worse. Given the even greater demographic and dfebt-driven financial crisis in Europe, we are readily able to see where the social welfare and government management of our economy, so advocated by this Administration, will likely lead us.
4. A president who promised to be a uniter, who in fact practices a degree of cynical divisiveness unmatched by any Administration in recent history.
5. An Administration very dedicated to political payoffs to its political allies. From labor unions to various advocacy groups this Administration has bent the law and assumed unprecedented authority to grant politically selective waivers to standing law and in other cases to exceed the mandates of law to pursue its agenda in ways not compatible with the Constitution.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 07:31 pm
@georgeob1,
I see a firestorm coming.....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:21 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
On what basis can you claim to know that ?


Observable evidence. The rhetoric and actual voting behavior of the modern GOP consistently prioritizes lowering taxes over ALL other concerns. And has so for my entire lifetime.

All the other things you mentioned are just fluff to cover up the truth...

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 06:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
By the same logic and evidence all Obama supporters are primarily interested in more free handouts from government. Do you accept that as well?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 06:31 pm
@georgeob1,
For one thing, more whites receive welfare than Hispanics or blacks.

Quote:
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as “direct benefit payments for individuals” by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.

Social Security is the nation’s largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 06:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your powers of statistical analydsis appear to be limited. Blacks constitute about 12% of the population; whites (depending on how you define them), about 64% That's a ratio of about 5:1.

Social Security was enacted as a mandatory contributory retirement plan, not as welfare. The benefits are paid out of special taxes paid and the benefit dollars are proportional to the taxes paid.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 07:43 pm
@georgeob1,
That doesn't matter; we're talking total numbers, and the impression people have when the political candidates talk about "welfare." More whites recieve food stamps than does blacks.

That you consider social security as a "mandatory contributory retirement plan," you seem to ignore the history of the lifespans of blacks. This information was common knowledge when social security was implemented; most blacks paid into the system, but did not receive any of the benefits. Thankfully, the lifespan differences have narrowed quite a bit since then, but the beneficiaries are still predominately whites.

That both republicans and democrats knew about the unsustainability of social security and MediCare for many decades without making the necessary adjustments can't be blamed solely on Obama.



georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 08:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your conclusions are irrational: I think you are very confused.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:07 pm
@georgeob1,
Just "irrational" without challenging what I said? Okay.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What you wrote was an irrational conclusion from the data you cited. That's challenge enough.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:57 pm
@georgeob1,
Interesting, because hingehead posted this on another thread.

Quote:
Quote:

Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.

"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.

The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26% since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.

Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps." African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use in Grafton County is 6% – a 48% increase since 2007.

Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change in politics, not just politicians.
the prince
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 11:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
How can a thread on a meeting between lovely lovely people turn into a thread on politics? <wonders>
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 12:29 am
@the prince,
the prince wrote:

How can a thread on a meeting between lovely lovely people turn into a thread on politics? <wonders>


no moderation being present.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another SF Meet?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 11:56:29