3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 12:54 pm
Advocate wrote:
That is correct. I don't have endless time available to deal with your silly nit-picking and quibbling.


If you don't have the time to substantiate most of your inane accusations/claims/statements, perhaps you should just keep them to yourself?

Quote:
I usually back up my statements.


That's not been my observation. But in any case, go ahead and do it now.

Quote:
But, often, my statements are so clearly true that further support is redundant.


It's "true" in your mind .... but you are wrong, and seem to fear my demonstrating the fact of your ignorance or misunderstanding.

And the only "redundancy" that might occur is because the only "support" you offer in the first instance is your pure, unadulterated opinion ... which you will, no doubt, offer a second time as further "support."

Quote:
For example, saying that Bush damaged this country requires no itemization.


Yes, we all know you are breathlessly insistent that Bush has irreparably destroyed the United States. You are no different than any other garden-variety leftist on this board in that regard. But I'm not arguing that point with you, because that one has indeed been argued ad nauseum. (But I'd be happy to argue it if you would like. But I understand you don't have the time .....)

Quote:
We know he lied us into a war, ...


No, we don't know that. You know that, but if you'd participated in any of the numerous threads on this site that have already covered this territory, you would know that your claim in this regard is incorrect, certainly contested, and unable to be substantiated. (Again, I'd be willing to discuss this matter further .... if you have the time.)

Quote:
... is responsible for turning large surpluses into huge deficits, ...


Well, he's certainly not controlling spending, but there are other factors involved which you will certainly choose to ignore.

Quote:
... brought us unfair tax law ...


In your opinion.

Quote:
...and a stupid drug plan for seniors, etc.


In your opinion.

Quote:
Everyone knows this.


No ... "everyone" does not know this. You know it in your heart or gut, or "down deep," and you have convinced yourself that the fact that YOU know it to be true, means that it must, in fact, be true.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you make a statement on this site and are unable to substantiate it, it is nothing more than your opinion ... which you are free to believe, no matter how misguided it is.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 12:55 pm
Well, if you want to quibble the issue, some profoundly ignorant or stupid people don't know those things about Bush.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 01:08 pm
Advocate wrote:
Well, if you want to quibble the issue, some profoundly ignorant or stupid people don't know those things about Bush.


Are you going to substantiate any claim/statement/accusation you make on this site, or will you be content to just make the claim without substantiation -- as if it's self-proving? You haven't participated at A2K very long, and I'd like to know now before I waste any further time trying to cull a response from you. There are certainly plenty of posters on this site who just bleat out their strong, closely-held beliefs about a particular subject, but are completely unable/unwilling to substantiate or articulate any support for their positions. They are content to call the person they are debating with "ignorant" or "stupid," or the equivalent, and leave it at that. Trying to get an intelligent argument from those folks is completely unrewarded. I'm starting to get that sense about you.

You should understand that if you choose the latter path, you will soon become largely ignored ... by me at least (which is perhaps what you would prefer). You will become just extraneous noise to be filtered out in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 03:34 pm
Seeing your posts, I gather that I could substantiate something beyond a shadow of a doubt and you would continue to quibble. This, of course, tells me that to endlessly respond to your nit picking would be a waste of time. If you wish to ignore me, be my guest. I'll similarly ignore you.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 04:18 pm
Advocate wrote:
Seeing your posts, I gather that I could substantiate something beyond a shadow of a doubt and you would continue to quibble.


Based on what I've seen of you thus far, I don't think you could substantiate yourself out of a paper bag.

Quote:
This, of course, tells me that to endlessly respond to your nit picking would be a waste of time.


And your refusal to provide any substance to your arguments demonstrates the shallowness of your understanding of the topic we are discussing. Actually, it's probably a wise move on your part ... after all, perhaps it's better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Quote:
If you wish to ignore me, be my guest. I'll similarly ignore you.


Of course I'll likely still point out your BS and frequent refusals to substantiate your positions. I just won't expect a direct answer of any depth or substance from you, which some of the more thoughtful liberal posters are capable of.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:25 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
pachelbel writes
Quote:
Can you please explain to me what the American dream is? Thanks.


I'll field this one slkshock. Smile

The American dream is a reality that one has the power to intentionally rise above and beyond their immediate circumstances through virtue, hard work, perserverance, and ingenuity. It is born of a society that does not guarantee equality of outcome or the same starting point, but provides everybody a chance at the prize. Both the privileged and the poor can attain it.

The American dream requires neither government largesse nor intervention. It expects government to protect unalienable, Constitutional, and legal rights, and otherwise needs government to get out of the way and allow people to aspire to reach whatever goals they set for themselves. It offers no guarantees but virtually unlimited opportunities.

The American dream is unattainable at the government nipple and is elusive if not impossible for those who depend on the government nipple for backup or who demand access to it. It is realized by those who leave the nest and get after it knowing the possibilities available to a people truly free to pursue them.


Gee, thanks for the explanation! You do live in fantasyland don't you?

I think this article represents the American Dream. And if you're honest with yourself you'll know it's true. I know too many Americans who are barely keeping their heads above water to doubt the article. Sad, really. You guys should really try national health care and take better care of your old folk while you're at it.

Middle class barely treads water

By Christine Dugas, USA TODAY92% of the record 1.6 million filers in the year ended June 30 were middle class, according to a Harvard University study. "Costs are rising quickly, and benefits that used to be provided by employers now must be provided by workers themselves, including health insurance and retirement," says Christian Weller, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:59 pm
pachelbel wrote:
Some dream. Sounds more like a nightmare to me. Maybe you Yanks should lower your standard of living. Are you aware that only 1% own 95% of the wealth in the US?


Do I detect a note of jealousy?

Perhaps you misunderstood ... the American Dream doesn't come with a money-back guarantee, and one is not guaranteed to become as fabulously rich as one can dream. But one is able to have the opportunity to pursue a better life for oneself, through hard work, perserverance, and determination ... and, of course, good luck also helps. It is as Foxy said ... everybody is given a chance to succeed or fail.

That is the American Dream.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:32 pm
Pachelbel wrote:
I think this article represents the American Dream. And if you're honest with yourself you'll know it's true. I know too many Americans who are barely keeping their heads above water to doubt the article.


No...this article is about a lack of financial planning, and living beyond one's means....Controlling your spending has always been a requirement to achieve the American Dream.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:53 pm
Pachelbel, Tico and Slkshock are right.

Nobody can spend themselves into prosperity.

And if you are among those who don't stay in school and educate themselves, who get involved with alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, or other illegal activity, if you get pregnant and have kids without being married, and/or you just don't want to pay your dues and learn a work ethic at entry level jobs, then yes, you will likely be among those who see opportunity slipping away from them. But it's your choice. You can make good choices or bad choices at any stage of life. Those that make it happen are those who enjoy the American dream.

And if you're looking for others to provide you with what you want, whether it be corporate America or the government, you are also likely to be among the many who get stuck below their expectations. And people in this position invariably blame the President, blame the government, blame the evil corporations, etc. for their dilemma. Those who refuse to accept a glass ceiling, who learn and grow and make themselves productive and indispensable are the ones who are rarely disappointed. And this type of course appreciates any benefits that come his way, but he will also save for his own retirement, pay for his own healthcare and doesn't expect anything that he doesn't earn. And generally, he earns very nicely.

I remember one young man, a mechanical engineer with a wife and young child, who lost his pretty good job in a corporate merger thing. Employment in his field was tight and jobs hard to come by. Now he could have sat back and whined and bitched and complained at how unfair the world was. But instead he took whatever temp jobs he could get, waited tables, ran a fork lift, and worked the night shift at a convenience store. He was determined to support his family and keep his wife in college as she was near finishing up a degree. And when he finally got back into his own field, it was almost at double the salary and benefits he had been making before. His willingness to do whatever he had to do to get it done no doubt impressed his new employer and possibly opened some doors.

The American dream isn't just handed to most people. But it's there for the taking for those willing to go after it.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 11:17 pm
Still believe in the American Dream? Whatever.......

Retirement Insecurity
By James P. Hoffa, General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United States

For the first 160 years of our nation's existence, working until your last breath was the norm.

The ravages of old age, illness, disability and death were borne alone, or with the help of extended family. Seniors without family were often dumped in the county "poor house," along with orphans and unwed mothers. As industrialization drew people toward cities, thousands of Americans found themselves at the mercy of factory foremen and the volatility of the US economy.

Two things cured the chronic insecurity suffered by American seniors: Social Security and defined benefit pensions. President Bush tried to gut Social Security last year. The pension crisis is so severe that the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) is itself in crisis-with a deficit of $23 billion. And there is no end in sight, with the PBGC reporting that unfunded private pension obligations stand at about $450 billion. Beyond the private sector, it is estimated that there is another $500 billion in unfunded public sector employee pension obligations. You can hardly open up a newspaper these days without reading about another multimillion-dollar corporation that is cutting and running on its employees, and eventually, the taxpayers.
If you watch or read the corporate media, it might appear reasonable to pity these corporations in their struggle to liberate themselves from burdensome "legacy costs." But when you look at the greedy and irresponsible way in which many companies have gambled with their employees' futures, it is hard to feel anything but rage.

For years, companies offered workers pension increases in lieu of salary increases, essentially writing workers a check they can no longer cash. At IBM, workers accepted below-market salaries for years because the company promised it would take care of them when they stopped working. On January 6, 2006, IBM announced it was freezing its pension in favor of a 401(k) plan.

No matter how you cut it, workers' benefits are reduced when 401(k)s are compared with defined benefit pensions. Just ask the employees of Enron and WorldCom, whose 401(k)s were wiped out to the tune of $1 billion, respectively. No lawsuit is ever going to get that money back for them.

If the market goes bad, that's too bad. The money is gone and you've got to start all over again, but with what? For hundreds of thousands of workers, it's too late to start over.

It's that kind of volatility that led President Roosevelt to create Social Security. In doing so, he not only protected vulnerable seniors, but also guaranteed a more stable, prosperous economy.

The pension crisis has been brewing for decades, yet Congress has blindly led us along the primrose path, conceding to the demands of corporate lobbyists rather than their constituents. When it came time to close loopholes in the pension system or fix the fuzzy math in its accounting rules to make sure the money was there, Congress did not act.

Lawmakers have continually allowed companies to cry penniless in bankruptcy court, free to walk away with millions that could have gone to people robbed of their pensions. They have denied workers the right to sue to get that money back. And they have structured the rules so as to invite companies to abandon pensions in favor of 401(k)s. It is a familiar tune that the government has been singing: Individual responsibility, corporate charity.

We expect this behavior from corporate America. That's why people choose to form unions-they are the anti-theft device for working people. But we should expect more from our government.

*********************************************************
Jealous? No. Just glad I'm not an American Rolling Eyes Would you like to start over again in your 50's like hundreds of thousands of people are having to do? American Dream, my arse.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 11:56 pm
And what does that have to do with anything we've said about the American dream Pachelbel? If you want to rant about poorly run businesses, why don't you start a thread about that? I'm sure there are others who would agree with you. I would very much recommend that since you seem to have no interest in entering into a discussion of what others believe the American dream to be.

The fact that there are corrupt or incompetent people in the world has absolutely nothing to do with opportunity to achieve the American dream, however.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 01:19 am
pachelbel wrote:
Still believe in the American Dream? Whatever.......

Retirement Insecurity
By James P. Hoffa, General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United States .....


The American Dream is not for whiners and complainers looking to blame everybody else but themselves, and always jealous that somebody else has it better than them. So, sounds like you're better off where you are, wherever that is, instead of America.

P.S. I would hardly quote somebody like James Hoffa as having much worthwhile to say about the ethics of corporations, when his own union is run like the mafia.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 03:59 am
pachelbel wrote:
Jealous? No. Just glad I'm not an American Rolling Eyes
You're not alone by any stretch of the imagination. I'm glad you're not an American, too. Another vote for Communist ideals we can do without. The American dream is alive and well. Unlike your ilk's endless pursuit of freebies and handouts; those of us who actually produce appreciate the opportunity to do so. And we understand that opportunity is greatly diminished (if not eliminated altogether) in the communistic society you would choose to live in. Stay where you are and continue to vote wealth from the community chest into your own pocket for as long as the producers remain willing to produce in an ever-less-rewarding gamble. Pray for a wall to be erected so your best and brightest will stop coming here where their efforts are rewarded.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 04:13 am
If the Cliche-Punishment Angel descends on this page, there will be great wrath and much smiting.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 08:22 am
Yeah, I think there's a "patronizing critic" smiting angel out there somewhere too.

And I just HAVE to note that somebody criticizing unacceptable practices actually used James Hoffa as an authority on what the American dream isn't. Smile

And I personally have started over several times including 'after 50' and did not mind in the least doing so. I was grateful for a country and a system that made it possible to do.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 10:14 am
Tico, I gather you are a bit dense. I sufficiently support my statements. But if the support has been all over the media, a2k, etc., I am not going to waste time repeating it. I gather from your posts that no amount of support would stop your quibbling.

Main Entry: 1quib·ble
Pronunciation: 'kwi-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): quib·bled; quib·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
intransitive verb
1 : to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words
2 a : CAVIL, CARP b : BICKER
transitive verb : to subject to quibbles
- quib·bler /-b(&-)l&r/ noun
--Webster's-Merriam

Your quibbling is tantamount to lying.

The plutocracy in the USA is growing. CEOs compensation is out of sight, and it is not obtained in true arm's-length transactions. Bush has given us tax cuts that are disproportionately beneficial to the super-rich. He now wants to abolish the estate tax, which will be a great boon to Paris Hilton, Teresa Heinz, and the Wal-Mart heirs. Meanwhile, the middle class is dissapearing, and the poor are sinking even further in income, benefits, etc. However, the right, good dupes that they are, see no problem.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 10:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:

And I personally have started over several times including 'after 50' and did not mind in the least doing so. I was grateful for a country and a system that made it possible to do.


The stupidity in all this is that these brain-washed-talkin'-point-spoutin' folk think that the USA stands alone in the world in this regard.

The self-absorption is what is so sickening. And this self-absorption has a great deal to do with what's causing so much pain, death and suffering among the people of this planet.

This self absorption is also what prevents these otherwise sane folk from demanding that the grevious ills heaped upon these same millions be redressed in the fair and equitable fashion that is so often touted as being American.

Boy, I bet there's some "cheesehead" wishes he could take back that idiotic "communist' remark. Smile
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 10:50 am
So, let's say the billionaires of the US were taxed ata much higher rate. The governemnt uses that money to help pay the deficit.

How does that help the poor become less poor? Why is it that the poor are always directly associated with the tax breaks for the rich? Do some believe that by taxing the rich more, the poor will suddenly get off their lazy asses and find jobs?

Id oubt it. The poor will always be poor and the rich will stay rich. That's the way it is and that's the way it will most likely stay for quite sometime.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 11:24 am
bill said
Quote:
Unlike your ilk's endless pursuit of freebies and handouts; those of us who actually produce appreciate the opportunity to do so.


That's quite uncareful, bill. My "cliche" yuk above was directed partly to you.

You suggest a correlation between...
- political philosophies favoring social safetynet mechanisms along with favoring some degree of policing of capitalism's negatives

-and personal tendencies to laziness, irresponsibility and parasitism.

But, overwhelmingly, Americans have favored such mechanisms for at least 80 years or so. Or, you could look at individuals like JK Galbraith who have worked through a full lifetime far harder than either you or I and who have set to the task of serving their country with integrity and dignity and a sincere desire to serve well and effectively.

Or, you could consider my case. I've worked almost constantly since I was twelve (two summers off between 16 and retirement). Even while I went back to university and did five years full time, I worked on the side as well. The majority of my working life was associated with small businesses, including running my own small business (for last 20 years up to retiring). Now, I find I'm not retired any longer but, with Lola, running another small business.

It is too easy to make the move you made above. It avoids all the difficult questions and allows you to squeeze through under cover of an unreflective (and greatly false) cliche.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 11:32 am
Ticomaya wrote:
JTT wrote:
Delusional doesn't begin to cover it.


Hysterical, mindnumbing paranoia starts to cover it.


Indeed that does cover the wannabe king and his minions..... Thanks Tico!

Speaking of paranoia:

July 4, 2006 -- Even Bush's crap is classified top secret. According
to our Austrian sources, Austrian newspapers are currently abuzz with
special security details of George W. Bush's recent trip to Vienna.
Although the heavy-handed Gestapo-like security measures meted out to
Viennese home owners, business proprietors, and pedestrians by US
Secret Service agents and local police before and during Bush's visit
received widespread Austrian media attention, it was White House
"toilet security" ("TOILSEC"), which has Austrians talking the most.
The White House flew in a special portable toilet to Vienna for Bush's
personal use during his visit. The Bush White House is so concerned
about Bush's security, the veil of secrecy extends over the
president's bodily excretions. The special port-a-john captured Bush's
feces and urine and flew the waste material back to the United States
in the event some enterprising foreign intelligence agency conducted a
sewage pipe operation designed to trap and examine Bush's waste
material. One can only wonder why the White House is taking such extraordinary security measures for the presidential poop.

In the past, similar operations were conducted against foreign leaders
to determine their medical condition. However, these intelligence
operations were directed against dictators in countries where even the
medical conditions of the top political leaders were considered "state
secrets." The Israeli Mossad conducted one such operation against
Syrian President Hafez Assad when he visited Amman, Jordan in Feb.
1999 for the funeral of King Hussein. The Mossad and its Jordanian
counterpart installed a special toilet in Assad's hotel room that led
not to a pipe but to a specimen canister. Assad suffered from diabetes
and cancer and the operation was designed to discover the actual
medical condition of the ailing leader. During Soviet President
Mikhail Gorbachev's visit to Washington in 1987, the CIA reportedly
placed a special trap under a sewage tank to collect the Soviet
leader's bodily waste for analysis. More recently, the CIA was
reported to have collected waste samples from Ugandan
President-dictator Yoweri Museveni's toilet when he visited
Washington.

Even Bush's toilet paper was flown in from the U.S. Air Base at
Ramstein, Germany. In addition, Bush's food was flown in from the
United States and tested with special chemicals before he ate it.
Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, who was shot by a firing squad in
1989, was the last major European leader to constantly use a food
tester. The last frequent state visitor to Vienna, who always relied
on a food tester, was Adolf Hitler.


http://waynemadsenreport.com/


I'm sure that bu$h supporters will have some dandy explanations for this one!

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 03/20/2025 at 06:07:01