POLITICAL THREAD

[morgousky]

OK thanks

on not knowing how I congratulated myself?

 

[From-the-stands]

on not knowing how I congratulated myself?

I'm sure it's just an unconscious reaction to your own post

 

[morgousky]

I'm sure it's just an unconscious reaction to your own post

Just had a thought to add to a post. Gotcha games are fun until they don't work I suppose.

 

[-LEK-]

Are you blind?

What more evidence do you need?

Just some causal facts. Something measurable. Not an opinion.

For example, David Duke, a republican, was racist due to his years as KKK leader. However, I would not say all republicans are racist.

However, say you were to make the claim most republicans were bigots, you could cite their opposition to gay marriage. As in 2/3 oppose it. It's current, it shows a broad web.
http://nypost.com/2015/07/09/almost-two-thirds-of-republicans-oppose-gay-marriage-ruling/

I'm not making those claims, merely pointing out how some of you just sputter talking points, and never consider facts in backing up your claims. It's as though you believe that if you say something enough, it becomes true. We used to be better men. You took an issue, and you weighed each side against each other and the winner was the side that had the most facts on its side. Now, you think if you just go "nu-uh" to an agrument, you've won. It's insane.

 

[-LEK-]

Just had a thought to add to a post. Gotcha games are fun until they don't work I suppose.

Or you bust yourself.

 

[morgousky]

Just some causal facts. Something measurable. Not an opinion.

For example, David Duke, a republican, was racist due to his years as KKK leader. However, I would not say all republicans are racist.

However, say you were to make the claim most republicans were bigots, you could cite their opposition to gay marriage. As in 2/3 oppose it. It's current, it shows a broad web.
http://nypost.com/2015/07/09/almost-two-thirds-of-republicans-oppose-gay-marriage-ruling/

I'm not making those claims, merely pointing out how some of you just sputter talking points, and never consider facts in backing up your claims. It's as though you believe that if you say something enough, it becomes true. We used to be better men. You took an issue, and you weighed each side against each other and the winner was the side that had the most facts on its side. Now, you think if you just go "nu-uh" to an agrument, you've won. It's insane.

Republicans are not against gays having rights or being together. The term "marriage" adds a religious aspect which I don't support and many other religious people don't support. This is a typical tactic of the left, to mischaracterize a stance and set the table where an argument starts. I would be in full support of civil unions having a much more broader meaning for times of death and insurance or anything else that heterosexuals enjoy.

I dont agree with homosexuality, but it's not my call to make in 2016.

I have many facts to back up my position on the topic. Hell, you're probably already aware of most. Do I feel like posting links and searching the web to try and persuade unpersuadable people on an internet message board? no. If I did would it change your mind anyway? no. If you think Liberal policies are have worked over the last 50 years or longer in these areas, then citing a website to contradict it wouldn't do anything anyway.

Much easier to state it as an opinion and move on. I could link the decline of the black family since the implementation of feminist / liberal policies, but you already know the position. I could state REAL black unemployment numbers with inner city youth and how liberals have been unable to counteract it, but you already understand the position. I could link such things as crime data with black police interaction, showing oppression of officers on black populous is a myth, but you already know the position.

I'm lazy LEK, you won't agree anyway. Whats the point?

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

Anyone who thinks BOTH parties don't shamelessly try to manipulate minorities is lying to themselves. (one is just VERY VERY bad at keeping their -isms to themselves)

To the Repubs....just tell me what in the world Trump had to gain by getting into it with that slain soldier's parents. SOMEONE must have mentioned that was a bad idea.

I know the hatemongers would not like it but Trump can will this election easily by stop trying to appease the various prejudices of his voters who will vote for him anyway and just let Hilary kill herself off.

I thought it was to expose people who have no idea about Benghazi and embarrassingly enough, there are a ton of people who don't follow politics or even have an ounce of knowledge of Hillary's past. Yeah, it was "You suck" moment. However, I think it was much different than trotting out the mothers of Trayvon and Mike Brown to try and act like their kids were assassinated by cops for no reason especially considering we just had a few weeks of cop killings because of these tactics.

Obviously there will be pandering (the right does this with military) but no one quite does pandering like the left. What group didn't they trot out there? A dwarf, a girl in a wheelchair, transgender, Muslim, BLM activists, an abortion doctor from prison, feminists, etc all chimed in for the DNC.

I look at the parties and I see one who wants American values and pride, to honor military, protect the country, preaches personal responsibility and backs the constitution. The other one is every special interest group, a twisted view of America and the constant "you're oppressed" speeches and mentalities that follow.

 

[ymmot31]

You mean the set of initatives that gave voting rights, anti discrimination acts, civil rights, establishment of endowment for the arts, consumer protection, environmental protection laws, housing discrimination laws? Would love to hear why those are bad.

He mentioned the welfare state. Why did you ignore that? Rhetorical question.

"The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.
When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.

Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.
"

 

[cardkilla]

Let me say, when I say liberals are soft bigots I mainly mean the elite liberals who are power obsessed. They see their policies fail over and over yet change nothing because the nanny state creates disenchanted voters.

I don't believe the average liberal quite realizes the destruction of these policies, and sure isn't racist. They are just really, really, political and see everything by a win or a loss. Add to it the impoverished blacks keep voting for it, and it allows them to feel justified.

So Republicans care so much they've tried to keep them from voting? The NC law was a perfect example of WHY the Voting Rights Act is sadly still needed. As soon as Republicans saw an opening to disenfranchise blacks, they started rewriting these voting laws. If that doesn't work, they rewrite districts to limit their gains. If that doesn;'t work they purge voter rolls.

GTFO with your absolute garbage reasoning. Just the fact you blanketly talk about blacks grabbing their free phones and food stamps is a perfect example of how you think they are. When a white kid shoots up a school you don't condemn all white kids but when a black guy at a rally shoots cops, it's a race war and blacklivesmatter is killing cops.

That's why blacks and other minorities don't generally vote Republican. Dems, for all their faults, at least try to be the voice of minorities and are more inclusive. Perfect example is the interns for Repubs vs Dems.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

btw, here's an example of irony for you, as liberals are always talking about how great the European economic systems are:

Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Switzerland . . . all have no minimum wage.

In Canada, the responsibility for enacting and enforcing minimum wage lies within each of the 10 provinces, not promulgated by federal law.

There's something else they have in common as well that they seem to hate.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

So Republicans care so much they've tried to keep them from voting? The NC law was a perfect example of WHY the Voting Rights Act is sadly still needed. As soon as Republicans saw an opening to disenfranchise blacks, they started rewriting these voting laws. If that doesn't work, they rewrite districts to limit their gains. If that doesn;'t work they purge voter rolls.

GTFO with your absolute garbage reasoning. Just the fact you blanketly talk about blacks grabbing their free phones and food stamps is a perfect example of how you think they are. When a white kid shoots up a school you don't condemn all white kids but when a black guy at a rally shoots cops, it's a race war and blacklivesmatter is killing cops.

That's why blacks and other minorities don't generally vote Republican. Dems, for all their faults, at least try to be the voice of minorities and are more inclusive. Perfect example is the interns for Repubs vs Dems.

Democrats have gone from the party of slavery to the party of enslavement through the welfare state.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

What a perfect illustration of today's media.

Same guy wrote both stories, took two different stances because of the political parties involved.

"How dare you exploit that for political gain by using Pat Smith." Turns around and praises the use of mothers from BLM and a Muslim parent of a soldier.

It's a tad bit funny that just two weeks ago Obama called for an end to "divisive rhetoric" after the rhetoric got cops assassinated and then trots out these group of women at the DNC.

 

[cardkilla]

What a perfect illustration of today's media.

Same guy wrote both stories, took two different stances because of the political parties involved.

"How dare you exploit that for political gain by using Pat Smith." Turns around and praises the use of mothers from BLM and a Muslim parent of a soldier.

It's a tad bit funny that just two weeks ago Obama called for an end to "divisive rhetoric" after the rhetoric got cops assassinated and then trots out these group of women at the DNC.

It's called CONTEXT. The RNC used a mother to attack Hillary as if she personally killed her son in Benghazi. Never mind that Republicans decreased funding for embassy security in 2011 and 2012. Yet somehow are not blamed. They used this tragedy to try to diminish Hillary's poll numbers.

Meanwhile the US Soldier's parents were used to refute Trump's hateful rhetoric against Muslims and wanting to ban them from entering the country. Showing that yes, there are Muslims fighting for this country.

I understand that context can be a tricky thing to get though.

 

[cardkilla]

DT needs another round of terrorism to help get that fear back into this election. He had a pretty rough weekend.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

It's called CONTEXT. The RNC used a mother to attack Hillary as if she personally killed her son in Benghazi. Never mind that Republicans decreased funding for embassy security in 2011 and 2012. Yet somehow are not blamed. They used this tragedy to try to diminish Hillary's poll numbers.

Meanwhile the US Soldier's parents were used to refute Trump's hateful rhetoric against Muslims and wanting to ban them from entering the country. Showing that yes, there are Muslims fighting for this country.

I understand that context can be a tricky thing to get though.

So they weren't told to stand down multiple times when they tried to rescue? Hillary didn't lie to the parents of the dead by blaming a video in order to help keep Obama in office for the 2012 election?

Khan is already being exposed for his past and his beliefs, he's hardly the guy to rally the troops and he was used as a propaganda tool to make people be okay with open borders and the massive migration of Muslims into western civilization, which has been proven to not work at all.

Also, what good purpose did having the BLM mothers there do other than stir up the racial tensions and cop hate and further perpetuate a false narrative? It was pandering.

 

[Willy4UK]

Bout that time for the Clinton team to manufacture a terrorist attack so that that the 3rd term Obama admin successfully strips our remaining rights away.

NDAA
Stronger Patriot Act
Freedom Act
TTIP/TTP
Stingray Technology
Stronger NSA

Maybe Hill-Dawg will keep Gitmo open a little longer so she can detain Americans under the NDAA.

Gett'em Hill-Dawg. Kill off the rest of American freedom. You dirty c**t.

 

[mdlUK.1]

Pretty odd that mr Kahn was all over the MSM for his speech at the dnc but Mrs. Smith's speech at the RNC, the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, was hardly mentioned, if at all. Why is that?

 

[the nail at the foul line]

You mean the set of initatives that gave voting rights, anti discrimination acts, civil rights, establishment of endowment for the arts, consumer protection, environmental protection laws, housing discrimination laws? Would love to hear why those are bad.

No, I do not. Eric Stratton would be proud.

I am asking about the initiatives that replaced fathers with bureaucrats. That rewards breeding.

 

[-LEK-]

He mentioned the welfare state. Why did you ignore that? Rhetorical question.

"The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.
When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.

Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.
"

Because what he asked dealt with multiple things. Since we were on the race topic, thought I would stay in that.

You think you have me pegged, you don't. I don't support the welfare state. Just like I don't support paying you and your generation all the subsidies you receive. What's funny, is you don't think the checks you get count, because some how, you think you've earned them, yet you're paid out more than actual workers, yet bitch about others, when you're a welfare recipient. You get government money no? You get a monthly check? They pay for your insurance? How is this different?

 

[Mashburned]

Lmao. No context? No problem! Right LEK?

*here's where he accuses me of pulling a check

 

[ymmot31]

You mean the set of initatives that gave voting rights, anti discrimination acts, civil rights, establishment of endowment for the arts, consumer protection, environmental protection laws, housing discrimination laws? Would love to hear why those are bad.

Because what he asked dealt with multiple things. Since we were on the race topic, thought I would stay in that.

You think you have me pegged, you don't. I don't support the welfare state. Just like I don't support paying you and your generation all the subsidies you receive. What's funny, is you don't think the checks you get count, because some how, you think you've earned them, yet you're paid out more than actual workers, yet bitch about others, when you're a welfare recipient. You get government money no? You get a monthly check? They pay for your insurance? How is this different?

You support democrats and always have on this forum, anyone that's been here at all know this. When you support democrats you support the welfare state by default.

You're in your mid 40's, I'm in my mid 50's. That's the same generation.

The numbers prove that welfare served to destroy the black family. You have no argument for that. Democrats bought the black vote at a great price to all of us.

 

[allabouttheUK]

Well, if you don't trust the WaPo then you are so far up your parties echo chamber common sense can't reach you.

It's okay. You're a blind partisan. As blind as the Putin partisans constantly trolling people on social media. If the paper of record for 5 decades can't convince you nothing will.

Enjoy your cocoon. May the news you get always confirm to your preconceived narratives.

I WAS a democrat until 4 years ago. Please, keep spouting off like the rest of your ignorant party.

Democrats, the party of hypocrisy and walking talking contradictions.

I am also not a republican. I have conservative views and believe in personal accountability, personal responsibility.

 

[-LEK-]

You support democrats and always have on this forum, anyone that's been here at all know this. When you support democrats you support the welfare state by default.

You're in your mid 40's, I'm in my mid 50's. That's the same generation.

The numbers prove that welfare served to destroy the black family. You have no argument for that. Democrats bought the black vote at a great price to all of us.

Im not in my mid 40s. And no, i can believe in freedom of rights, and be fiscally responsible. Welfare has gotten out of hand. I dont support it, I dont fall party line, people are much more complex. I support repubs and dems. I do believe that so many older americans who bitch about welfare are the largest recipients of it.

As far are you welfare argument, Do you think that would hold up in court? Your honor, welfare numbers prove welfare served to destroy the black family?

How?

-Well, they just do.

-ok, how?

That is what I mean, you think its self evident, but the real world doesnt work that way. Even if we take the perverse path and assume your logic is correct, by your same standards, every politician is guilty of destroying black families, every tax payer is guilty, because they paid into it or gave to it. If you are a deomcrat, you support welfare. So if you have any part of something, you are the whole. Since repubs are part of a system that allows welfare, they are a part of the whole. Since tax payers are a part, they are the whole. See how stupid that is?

 

[-LEK-]

Lmao. No context? No problem! Right LEK?

*here's where he accuses me of pulling a check

But you do. Unless you tell us what your degree is in or where you work? You always seem to have free time, dont travel, live in a crappy apt, eat really bad cheap food., never talk about work or education, seem to have general/deep insight to the welfare populace. What am I missing here?

 

[cardkilla]

Pretty odd that mr Kahn was all over the MSM for his speech at the dnc but Mrs. Smith's speech at the RNC, the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, was hardly mentioned, if at all. Why is that?

Yeah and one candidate responded as a potential President SHOULD to criticism and one responded like Justin Bieber or Kanye West.

 

[-LEK-]

No, I do not. Eric Stratton would be proud.

I am asking about the initiatives that replaced fathers with bureaucrats. That rewards breeding.

You asked a broad set of initiatives. It was like asking me how do you feel about the early 1900s. I get what you were asking, but I assume that you employ the same logic as tommy, that the smallest part taints the whole. I dont. I think a lot of the things I mentioned were great. And no, I think welfare is needed in some cases, but its a deterrent to self reliability, and I dont support it over all. Too many able bodied people rely on it. Its easier to get $700/month and healthcare, then to work. Look at Eastern KY.

I get you are trying to "get me," but just ask a more pointed question. Did I support the good things that came from the the Great Society initiatives? yes, the gave a lot of rights to people. And no, I dont support the war on poverty results. I think its our duty to help those who are poor, and as I have said in the past, I volunteer a lot of time to helping the poor, but dont think people should be hooked on government support. Nor do I think corporations should be either.

 

[TransyCat09]

The irony of someone being cheered for pulling out a copy of a Constitution at a nominating convention for someone who explicitly wants to hollow out the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments is immense.

 

[Mashburned]

But you do. Unless you tell us what your degree is in or where you work? You always seem to have free time, dont travel, live in a crappy apt, eat really bad cheap food., never talk about work or education, seem to have general/deep insight to the welfare populace. What am I missing here?

The internet...

 

[Bill Cosby]

The irony of someone being cheered for pulling out a copy of a Constitution at a nominating convention for someone who explicitly wants to hollow out the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments is immense.

But they support the equal protection clause which protects the rights of Muslims from third world shitholes, apparently.

 

[Teachable Moe]

But that has nothing to do with Miami. Again, that photo was taken after an extensive rain. A flooding they already expected to happen because of that extensive rain.

That photo came up after a GIS: Miami street flooding king tide.
It's an illustration..

My subject was the question: who really is a toady/supporter of Wall St. A good proxy for that is the question of AGW. It's a very good proxy. There had a been a round of playground taunting over the issue here of who backed big business and Wall St. So, I brought up AGW. It's here. Not distant. Waters have risen so high during king tides that Miami -- and indeed much of SE Florida -- floods. Regardless of the weather. No rain or storm needed.

It's not the issue but an illustration of why it's pressing.

The lawsuit against oil companies has discovered the evidence that oil company scientists -- not academic or government -- had revealed to management what increasing cO2 in the atmosphere does. Management did not share this info with their shareholders as is their duty. You can't hide rise from the owners. Bad management.

So, no longer can deniers pretend that AGW is a conspiracy.

Since temps this year have risen to 1.4C over pre-industrial times, deniers can't hide behind the belief that AGW won't amount to much. (3C per doubling of cO2 loooks distinctly possible. Or more.) That's just the fast response: final warming will be more. The earth's response to CO2 has been remarkable/alarming. As much as 14C of warming coming out of the depths of glaciation. In a geological instant. (does it happen over 100 years? 1000? The data isn't fine-grained enough to show. But happen it does. Graphs show the repeated waves: elevator up, stair step down. Over the last ~500,000 years.)

Basically, the veneer of respectability over any aspect of denialism has vanished this year. Now would be a good time to have a change of heart on the issue. Time's running out.

Actually, it would be very good time to have a change of heart on the issue. I've recently seen a story on an invention which mimics photosynthesis. It extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and combines with sunlight to form a fuel. I've no idea if the story was a joke or a con or is too expensive or inefficient. Anything, really, except the concept. But it's a glimmer of hope.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Yeah and one candidate responded as a potential President SHOULD to criticism and one responded like Justin Bieber or Kanye West.

LOL - didn't Hillary call the mother a liar in a debate? Yeah? Yeah.

 

[allabouttheUK]

So Republicans care so much they've tried to keep them from voting? The NC law was a perfect example of WHY the Voting Rights Act is sadly still needed. As soon as Republicans saw an opening to disenfranchise blacks, they started rewriting these voting laws. If that doesn't work, they rewrite districts to limit their gains. If that doesn;'t work they purge voter rolls.

GTFO with your absolute garbage reasoning. Just the fact you blanketly talk about blacks grabbing their free phones and food stamps is a perfect example of how you think they are. When a white kid shoots up a school you don't condemn all white kids but when a black guy at a rally shoots cops, it's a race war and blacklivesmatter is killing cops.

That's why blacks and other minorities don't generally vote Republican. Dems, for all their faults, at least try to be the voice of minorities and are more inclusive. Perfect example is the interns for Repubs vs Dems.

White kid shoots up a school with no race in mind, he's an equal opportunity killer. Black guys nipes cops at a rally and even makes it known that he's after white cops, you don't see a difference? Let's reverse it for a minute. How about if it were a white dude that made it known he wanted black cops dead? Would that be burried, like the motive of the cop killer in Texas? Hell to the efffing NO it wouldn't. It would even be a rallying cry for BLM, Jessie Jackson, and Al Sharpton.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Interesting turn here. I was confident Z and Moe weren't the same person. Now I'm not so sure.

I mean there's only a couple posters who continuously advocate sacrificing the sovereignty of the US at the alter of man made global warming.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

You asked a broad set of initiatives. It was like asking me how do you feel about the early 1900s. I get what you were asking, but I assume that you employ the same logic as tommy, that the smallest part taints the whole. I dont. I think a lot of the things I mentioned were great. And no, I think welfare is needed in some cases, but its a deterrent to self reliability, and I dont support it over all. Too many able bodied people rely on it. Its easier to get $700/month and healthcare, then to work. Look at Eastern KY.

I get you are trying to "get me," but just ask a more pointed question. Did I support the good things that came from the the Great Society initiatives? yes, the gave a lot of rights to people. And no, I dont support the war on poverty results. I think its our duty to help those who are poor, and as I have said in the past, I volunteer a lot of time to helping the poor, but dont think people should be hooked on government support. Nor do I think corporations should be either.

Why do I have a duty to help the poor?

Because you say so?

 

[Teachable Moe]

Anyone bothering to even interact with z/moe/gus (no doubt all the same person) is literally wasting their time.

They're not engaging in any actual debate. They're either really dedicated trolls; or paid Internet trolls.

We're not the same person. (Well, I'm not.) But who cares? I'm not debating people, i.e. I've been taking on the issues regardless of the name of the poster. I don't know who I'm talking to. The issue you raise applies to conservative writers as well. To me, every single writer here might be the same person using different logins. Unless you're an admin with access to IP logs you don't know.

But I really don't understand why you'd care. Nobody compels you to read or respond. You aren't graded or rewarded. There's no Scorekeeper. Nobody wins an internet trophy. If reading a different viewpoint upsets you, you can block offending posters and go on as if alternate points of view don't exist.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

So Republicans care so much they've tried to keep them from voting? The NC law was a perfect example of WHY the Voting Rights Act is sadly still needed. As soon as Republicans saw an opening to disenfranchise blacks, they started rewriting these voting laws. If that doesn't work, they rewrite districts to limit their gains. If that doesn;'t work they purge voter rolls.

GTFO with your absolute garbage reasoning. Just the fact you blanketly talk about blacks grabbing their free phones and food stamps is a perfect example of how you think they are. When a white kid shoots up a school you don't condemn all white kids but when a black guy at a rally shoots cops, it's a race war and blacklivesmatter is killing cops.

That's why blacks and other minorities don't generally vote Republican. Dems, for all their faults, at least try to be the voice of minorities and are more inclusive. Perfect example is the interns for Repubs vs Dems.

Way to drink the Kool aid. If you want to argue it disenfranchised poor people, I'll listen. But not race. All races would have to show an id; not just black.

Even the argument about the poor is weak. There's no value reason to oppose the attempt to make sure the person voting is who they say they are. None.

The irony of someone being cheered for pulling out a copy of a Constitution at a nominating convention for someone who explicitly wants to hollow out the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments is immense.

They best was when hillary quoted fdr as a reason not to let concerns guide our principles as it relates to Muslim refugees.

You know, the same fdr that put all japenese americans in concentration camps. If Trump would've made such a statement, the msm would've still been hounding him over it.

Interesting turn here. I was confident Z and Moe weren't the same person. Now I'm not so sure.

I mean there's only a couple posters who continuously advocate sacrificing the sovereignty of the US at the alter of man made global warming.

They're the same.

 

[Bill Cosby]

You aren't graded or rewarded. There's no Scorekeeper. Nobody wins an internet trophy.

Quite the contrary, you've actually won the worst poster of 2016 trophy in a landslide. And there's still 4 months left.

 

[Willy4UK]

That photo came up after a GIS: Miami street flooding king tide.
It's an illustration..

My subject was the question: who really is a toady/supporter of Wall St. A good proxy for that is the question of AGW. It's a very good proxy. There had a been a round of playground taunting over the issue here of who backed big business and Wall St. So, I brought up AGW. It's here. Not distant. Waters have risen so high during king tides that Miami -- and indeed much of SE Florida -- floods. Regardless of the weather. No rain or storm needed.

It's not the issue but an illustration of why it's pressing.

[King tides] aren’t part of climate change; they are a natural part of tidal cycles.”



I am not talking about the rest of your post Moe. I am talking about that photo and you are wrong. Matter of fact, the other links also support that rather than the sea lines are rising, that Miami's land may be sinking.

Again, for the fortieth time, I am not talking about the rest of your post. King Tides that cause flooding are not caused by climate change.

 

[Teachable Moe]

Oh really? A combination of cheap money, laissez faire, rampant Wall Street greed and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act may have had a slight impact.

[King tides] aren’t part of climate change; they are a natural part of tidal cycles.”



I am not talking about the rest of your post Moe. I am talking about that photo and you are wrong. Matter of fact, the other links also support that rather than the sea lines are rising, that Miami's land may be sinking.

Again, for the fortieth time, I am not talking about the rest of your post. King Tides that cause flooding are not caused by climate change.

And you'd be wrong. king tides formerly weren't that high. Why would you build extensively on streets that flooded that often?

 

[Teachable Moe]

Quite the contrary, you've actually won the worst poster of 2016 trophy in a landslide. And there's still 4 months left.