BoJester wrote:
Selective editing is not fair, and the true contex is often changed, but I never hear the complaints when Obama, Pelosi or any other democrat is "quoted" by selective editing, especially on the faux infotainment network.
How about we argue specific incidences? I can cite generalities too. You cited a specific event and I disputed it. You did not challenge directly what I said about the event.
Do not then go on a tirade about unnamed multiple examples of unfairness allegedly perpetrated by some fictional network. Use a real network name and give me real examples.
Unless you are not into serious discussions.
bluejacket wrote:
the only street mobs I see are the teaparty and the gun nuts that intimidate people who are gathered to talk about gun issues , the only street mobs are mostly on the extreme right
You have a selective memory. Yes, quite selective Sir. Give me examples of Tea Party street mobs. I bet you can't. Tea Party rallies have been models of public discourse. Models! They leave the spaces even cleaner than they found them. The most peaceable protesters in the known universe.
Compare that to the pigs who took over public spaces, camped out for weeks in squalor, caused thousands of dollars in clean up costs, and failed to prevent rapes with in their stinking camps. Ever hear of OWS?
Those aren't even the street mobs I meant. I meant in the spring of 2010 mobs of leftists in the hundreds would show up at the homes of targeted bank officials. At their homes!
Yes Sir, you have a very very selective memory.
jcahill425 wrote:
My whole point was that it is easy to take advantage of people when you keep them dumb and poor. There is no disputing that red states are the dumbest and poorest, and also receive more welfare. When I look at
debt I understand that some states have more people than others, and logically they would have to spend more, so I look at the per capita numbers and overall I would say it is a pretty even split:
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-debt-per-capita-figures.htmlAnd even though unemployment numbers mean nothing to me since it only includes people actively seeking employment and does not include people who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, nor does it include the underemployed, the numbers there are mixed too:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htmNow you can talk about blue states all you want, and yes, some spend more money than others, but it is impossible to deny that blue states are doing more for the people. They are educating their people better, keeping them out of poverty and off food stamps, assisting them with health insurance, and taking care of the most vulnerable people who need it the most.
My whole point was that it is easy to take advanta... (
show quote)
By your standards you are right. Blue states definitely take care of their dependents. Those of us who believe the opposite think that allowing people to have jobs rather than food stamps is better. We believe that your cradle to grave nanny states will implode like the city of Detroit.
Yes the few who cannot take care of themselves need help. The issue is everyone else. Your policies kill jobs. They keep people dependent, which is good for your power . but bad for them.
Seriously?
If you read what was said, they do not say elderly pregnant females. The conversation if stitched together poorly. When elderly is used it refers back to the earlier part of the comment.
You are looking for something that is not there.
bluejacket wrote:
Obama is no more a socialist than Bush was a fascist , but the corporate control was the same , so clean up your rhetoric and get to the basics, you bandy around words that you have little or no understanding of
Clean up my rhetoric? Hmmmm ! How to get through to you?
Okay, forget about corporate, socialist, and fascist.
You sound as if you are educated. Have you ever heard of Patronage? It basically means crony capitalism. You are right that Obama is not a classic Socialist. His " Rhetoric " is for the unwashed masses who swallow that class warfare schtick. He gives them bread and circuses to keep them in line . but does not want them movin on up to the East Side. (References to Rome and the Jeffersons.)
Your guy practices Patronage. He scares the rich with taxes and his street mobs. Then he cuts deals with the rich who are on his side. Government contracts for political contributions. It's the " Chicago Way ". The rich who don't pay up to this protection racket get attacked and screwed.
lpnmajor wrote:
because they cause the maternities?
Why do men die before women? They want to.
bluejacket wrote:
in a sense you are right supply side is only part of the problem , corporate control of politics of the country is another aspect of what is wrong
Corporate control? What is that? For 5 years Democrats have run things. I don't care about corporate control. I care about crony capital control. The thing about corporations that keeps them under control is that they have to compete with one another.
Under your socialist leader we have corporations who can buy their way into power. That gives them advantage over the good corporations. The evil corporations who screwed up your buddy's stupid website seem to have had connections in high places if you catch my drift. I find it all funny as hell. As funny as other cronies with high connections all benefiting from green subsidies before going bankrupt. I pray that is the corporate control you meant, but I really, really doubt it.
bluejacket wrote:
no supply side does not work , it facilitates the wealth gap and accelerates the accumulation of wealth at the top
Son, where did you get your views from? Public education no doubt. America has always been about new people rising from the bottom. In Europe you have little class mobility. In the USA, most of our millionaires were self made. On their way up they take many with them.
Even the evil corporations are good. Bitch all you want about them, then buy their stocks and make money. Invest and enjoy, enjoy.
I can cite the Reagan era. I can even cite the Clinton era as capitalism successes. Even the Bush era in totality was pretty damn good. Now look at the numbers for your socialist hero Barak.
I have backed up my words. Now back up your words.
bluejacket wrote:
the wealth gap is bad and has been growing for a long time but it was made much worse when supply side economics was introduced
A rising tide lifts all boats. Supply side economics actually works. Obamanomics does not work.
Funny how when you copy European socialism you get European economics. For decades part time work has been growing in Europe. Why? Because Socialism mandates all kinds of things for employers who employe full timers. Part time work is becoming the rule in Obamamerica. Why? Same reason.
Obama has done America a great service. America had to learn the hard way that Socialism doesn't work. Obama is a Bull crapp artiste. He has no idea how to govern. buying health insurance is never going to be like buying a song on iTunes, you know its just a much more complicated transaction. duh!
Now that he has blown up the current system so that it will never be right, your guy is just learning that coming up with something better will be harder than he imagined.
Floyd Brown wrote:
I don't know the racial mix here, but I have come to think it is mostly middle class white.
This is the group that has the most to lose.
We will lose as the money few suck more wealth into their hands.
When the American middle class loses America loses.
If America is to stay strong it's middle class has to be strong.
If the America's wealthy wish to retain their place as leader in the world there must be a strong middle class.
A group that represents every one of all races.
If you wish to lead you are only as strong the people you lead.
I don't know the racial mix here, but I have come ... (
show quote)
And you believe socialism is the way to correct that? How's that workin out for ya? I suppose the serfs were better off under Lenin and Stalin than under the Czar?
Anywho, if you care to look it up the gap between rich and poor got worse under your hero Obama.. Making everybody poorer doesn't help the poor or the middle class. Funny how that always is the case.
Poco624 wrote:
Seriously, you need to come out of your "Republican bubble" and start learning which states are governed by Republicans and which ones by Democrats because the poorest state in the union is Mississippi where Republican Phil Bryant is the governor. The poverty line is 22%, and the average income is $37,095. Experts say if MS was an individual country it would be a Third World.
The richest state in the union is Maryland where Democrat Martin O'Malley is governor and the median income is $71,221, almost twice that of MS, and the poverty level is 10%. Now, which state would you want to live in?
Seriously, you need to come out of your "Repu... (
show quote)
I wonder how well Maryland would be doing if it was to be cut off from the Federal Government teat. Along with Virginia, Maryland has a recession proof industry. Servicing the Federal behemoth. Poor Mississippi just can't compete with that.
jcahill425 wrote:
You know you're in a blue state when: br br 1. T... (
show quote)
No cherry pickin there, huh? Why doncha cite unemployment rates by states? Why doncha cite state debt and unfunded pension liabilities?
Facts are facts and yes depending how you arrange them , they can lie. You know lying, right? Name the last Democrat in the White House who was not a serial liar.
Mom8052 wrote:
Witless, the Democratic Party with the help of Obama is taking the citizens of our great nation into proverty. I am a Democrat, wishing to hell that my party would straighten up and realize that their agenda will make the US into a slave nation. Taxation without representation. This is just really pissing me off.
My advice is only for janieliza. I get tired of people claiming to be Conservatives or Republicans speaking the way of janieliza. Those people should just be what they really are.
If you have read anything I've written on these boards, you know where I speak from.
BoJester wrote:
brainless, I may have insulted YOU, but then angry teabaggers earn everything they get. Stop personal attacks and quit being so thin skinned or stay off of political forums
Definition of a hypocrite. Urban dictionary : " A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for . "
My skin is quite thick. Thicker than yours'. Head thickness, you got me there.
janieliza wrote:
I fear for the party. With the 36 tax exempt Koch political organizations, it appears the GOP is being taken over by the Koch regime. They are flailing at everything and nothing is sacred. We must again speak to a platform that has our interests at its heart. We must be able to speak in positive tones about what we can do to build our country. We must be prepared for 2016. This current Koch negativity attacking everything out there because of our current President is simply not going to make our job easier either... and I doubt we can stop the Koch regime, but we must distance ourselves from the more capitalistic Koch themes in order to regain the base. Yes, we have gerrymandered every state that has House seats of importance. But there is a strong backlash coming that will wipe out our party by sheer Will of the People. There is also a strong response from the state and federal election commissions and from the IRS and the banking oversight committees that have survived because the Senate has killed the Koch initiatives. It only takes three or four seats in the Senate to change our legislative ability, but we MUST have a platform and direction or we will end again as Obama has due to the Koch negative billion dollar campaign. Or there will simply be no GOP. We have to pick up the middle class. We must have an economic plan that will bring them more of the "trickle down" in order to save our party.
I fear for the party. With the 36 tax exempt Koch... (
show quote)
I feel your pain. If I were you I would flee to a party that reflects your virtues more than the GOP. The Democratic Party would welcome you with open arms.