Edstock Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Right or wrong he's making a case for willful ignorance on the part of conservatives and offering up the premise that they would die so you could not say later that you didn't know. Very similar to the far ranging posts by Immawhosure in that they both assume the other side is ignorant for one of many reasons and that they are the ones who can explain it. There is also the same incessant need to use caustic nicknames, such as gopperspew and Biggie Deficit, although Ed's is a bit more personal and Rich's a largely stereotypical. They also have no sense of humor. Beautify America, get rid of poor, ugly people. Use 'em for land-fill. However, the emergence of King Corn and the blizzard of junk food that the poor consume does make you wonder at the morality of selling to the obese. Back in the 50's when it became apparent that a large segment of Americans, primarily men in their forties were dying from heart disease, the baking industry started to include niacin, riboflavin and other vitamins and the problem seemed to go away. Fifty years later, it's super-size those fries! As to "caustic nicknames", the caustic is in the mind of the reader. Goppers gotta think what they gotta think — if, as and when they ever get around to actually thinking. You will note that knee-jerk does not qualify as "thinking". And that's their problem: since Bill Buckley died, and the Baggers have become the "core" of the GOP, they don't have anyone who can espouse the conservative viewpoint without sounding like they are Taliban-Lite. The GOP has got to be "for" something positive, but as it is now, they are "against". Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? A mean-spirited question that shows the sociopathic attitudes of too many Goppers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 They also have no sense of humor. Beautify America, get rid of poor, ugly people. Use 'em for land-fill. However, the emergence of King Corn and the blizzard of junk food that the poor consume does make you wonder at the morality of selling to the obese. Back in the 50's when it became apparent that a large segment of Americans, primarily men in their forties were dying from heart disease, the baking industry started to include niacin, riboflavin and other vitamins and the problem seemed to go away. Fifty years later, it's super-size those fries! As to "caustic nicknames", the caustic is in the mind of the reader. Goppers gotta think what they gotta think — if, as and when they ever get around to actually thinking. You will note that knee-jerk does not qualify as "thinking". And that's their problem: since Bill Buckley died, and the Baggers have become the "core" of the GOP, they don't have anyone who can espouse the conservative viewpoint without sounding like they are Taliban-Lite. The GOP has got to be "for" something positive, but as it is now, they are "against". Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? A mean-spirited question that shows the sociopathic attitudes of too many Goppers. Even though I agree with you that those left of center have a problem with being teased in a challenging way, it still doesn't do anything for discourse to tease them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 They also have no sense of humor. Beautify America, get rid of poor, ugly people. Use 'em for land-fill. However, the emergence of King Corn and the blizzard of junk food that the poor consume does make you wonder at the morality of selling to the obese. Back in the 50's when it became apparent that a large segment of Americans, primarily men in their forties were dying from heart disease, the baking industry started to include niacin, riboflavin and other vitamins and the problem seemed to go away. Fifty years later, it's super-size those fries! As to "caustic nicknames", the caustic is in the mind of the reader. Goppers gotta think what they gotta think — if, as and when they ever get around to actually thinking. You will note that knee-jerk does not qualify as "thinking". And that's their problem: since Bill Buckley died, and the Baggers have become the "core" of the GOP, they don't have anyone who can espouse the conservative viewpoint without sounding like they are Taliban-Lite. The GOP has got to be "for" something positive, but as it is now, they are "against". Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? A mean-spirited question that shows the sociopathic attitudes of too many Goppers. It is sad and tragic that good, nutritious food costs more and not as readily availabe as junk food. So many youngsters now have been brought up on junk, fast food and don't know any better. Even a fairly close neighbor in my condo complex fills the trash cans every week with many pizza boxes and other assorted fast food packaging. He has two kids living there, and that's all they eat. Pizza and fast food runs every night instead of nutritious, home cooked food and fresh greens. The dude has good job and makes good money, but he and his wife are too lazy to feed their family well. Sad. And good grocery stores are nearby, no excuse unlike those who live in inner city. I get the feeling both were raised on junk/fast food and passing that on to their two kids. And if all Unemployment Compensation is about is weekly check for 101 weeks, then I believe it does breed more unemployment at least for 101 weeks. I know more than a few people who sat home for 101 weeks collecting and then "miraculously" found work when the checks quit coming. Not surprised. More incentives and retraining expectations need to be incorporated to get many who sit home off their duffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Why even argue with such idiocy...ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) . Edited July 27, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Government wasting money on boondoggles like unemployment insurance causes unemployment because it kills incentive, and administration costs are through the roof. You don't grow an economy by taking money out of it. You drive business away and people have less to spend, so you end up with more unemployment. It is the same with welfare. It is one thing to help your neighbour if he is in need, but for the government to entitle him to your hard earned money, plus administration costs and brainwashing by "social workers". How do social workers stay employed? By solving poverty? They need more poverty. They need poverty to increase at a steady pace. This is what is happening. There would be less poverty now if government had never got involved. Edited July 28, 2012 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There would be less poverty now if government had never got involved. Who exactly is impoverished? The 9 out of ten entrepenuers who lose everything with no safety net to support them, or the 9/10 people in the lower class who have nothing to lose because they are supported by the safety net? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Who exactly is impoverished? The 9 out of ten entrepenuers who lose everything with no safety net to support them, or the 9/10 people in the lower class who have nothing to lose because they are supported by the safety net? Once you settle into a lifestyle, you can get comfortable with it, even though it may look repulsive to someone who is well off. That well off person is repulsive to the welfare recipient, also, so it balances out. The well off person wears designer clothes; the welfare person, Bargain Harolds, or Sally Anns. The well off person puts in 8 to 12 hours of work per day. The welfare recipient can tell you which members of the Newman and Abbot clan are in jail at any given time. Which lifestyle is better? It's a toss-up. Well off and well fare. They both sound good. Only in America. You can be an underground entrepreneur and pay no taxes, and collect welfare to front your operation. The best of both worlds. Hookers and drug dealers come to mind, among others. You can be an activist for welfare people and give your operation a name. Get grants from the municipality, and donations from the public. Nobody knows how much you are raking in. Government enables crime and they they get to tax us to fight it. People can come up with small time scams, but government is the grand-daddy scam artist. The way the government has it set up, only suckers play by the rules. Crime pays, and honest taxpayers are the ones paying. Edited July 28, 2012 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Government enables crime You really need to think about things before you paint with such a wide brush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Only in America. Pardon me but when did you become an American? Did you notice that when you and the rest of SCTV crew here wanted to engage in a discussion concerning the Great White North us yanks didn't run our mouths talking about only in Canada, eh? So grab Doug, put your tuque on and head down to the beer store for some Elsinore, but please don't think you qualified to discuss what happens here. Our buddies Ed and Trim in one of their more candid moments 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Once you settle into a lifestyle, you can get comfortable with it, even though it may look repulsive to someone who is well off. That well off person is repulsive to the welfare recipient, also, so it balances out. The well off person wears designer clothes; the welfare person, Bargain Harolds, or Sally Anns. The well off person puts in 8 to 12 hours of work per day. The welfare recipient can tell you which members of the Newman and Abbot clan are in jail at any given time. Which lifestyle is better? It's a toss-up. Well off and well fare. They both sound good. Only in America. You can be an underground entrepreneur and pay no taxes, and collect welfare to front your operation. The best of both worlds. Hookers and drug dealers come to mind, among others. You can be an activist for welfare people and give your operation a name. Get grants from the municipality, and donations from the public. Nobody knows how much you are raking in. Government enables crime and they they get to tax us to fight it. People can come up with small time scams, but government is the grand-daddy scam artist. The way the government has it set up, only suckers play by the rules. Crime pays, and honest taxpayers are the ones paying. Most people aren't repulsed by people that live a different lifestyle. Politicians and media like to convince us of such fallacies though. A man who only sees with his eyes is easily fooled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Most people aren't repulsed by people that live a different lifestyle. Politicians and media like to convince us of such fallacies though. A man who only sees with his eyes is easily fooled. I feel you man, I use a computer that gives voices to what is written so i can see with my ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I don't know what your general problem is but If you don't like what I post feel free to block or ignore me. I don't know you, i don't care to know you and since I have no personal feelings towards you it would not bother me in the least to know your not paying attention to what I post. Now I stand behind what I posted that short, over generalized comments that call a large group of people names are bullshit. I didn't say he was stupid or that conservatives were stupid. If you wish to have a discourse over politics, policy, the general direction of this and other countries let me know. dad, it was proven last time around that you aren't as smart as you think you are. Nobody is fooled by your new account. One would have thought you learned from parts/die's attempt to switch accounts, but as we have always said, the Left doesn't learn from their mistakes, they just keep pushing forward hoping things will miraculously work out. Right Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 dad, it was proven last time around that you aren't as smart as you think you are. Nobody is fooled by your new account. One would have thought you learned from parts/die's attempt to switch accounts, but as we have always said, the Left doesn't learn from their mistakes, they just keep pushing forward hoping things will miraculously work out. Right Obama? It may surprise you that I know i am not the smartest person. Not on here, not in my marriage, not at work and probably not most places. I'm well aware of my capabilities and even my bias's. I don't come here to be smarter than you or to suggest it. I come here to be entertained and learn which may surprise you. The problem comes in that we don't come here to find common ground and present ideas that we could work on together, we come to express our bias. It's just like the NRA v. Brady campaign. Both sides attack the other sides premises in entirety because neither trusts that the other will find a middle ground and stay there. That's you and I my friend and if you don't realize it then I may be smarter than you. So when do we find a common point at which to start? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Pardon me but when did you become an American? Did you notice that when you and the rest of SCTV crew here wanted to engage in a discussion concerning the Great White North us yanks didn't run our mouths talking about only in Canada, eh? So grab Doug, put your tuque on and head down to the beer store for some Elsinore, but please don't think you qualified to discuss what happens here. Our buddies Ed and Trim in one of their more candid moments Which one am I? LOL Canada is in North America. I like to think of Canada as American. Many Canadians think we are European. Canada has many European immigrants, and we are supposed to bow to the queen of England, and Quebec looks to France because they aren't too fond of England. I like to think I am American. I have deep roots in this continent. They are Aboriginal, American dating to the Mayflower 1620, passengers Billington family, Acadian on my mother's side dating to the early 1600s. I think that makes me American enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Most people aren't repulsed by people that live a different lifestyle. Politicians and media like to convince us of such fallacies though. A man who only sees with his eyes is easily fooled. If they are not repulsed, why do they think they need help? The guy sitting on the sidewalk clutching a bottle of cheap wine in a paper bag could be just as happy as the millionaire that just lost big on Bay Street, but is still a millionaire. Is he likely to chat up the bum, or give him a wide berth as he passes? Maybe the millionaire is hunchbacked and walks with a limp, while the wino has charisma and a whole string of babes at the hostel. Who is to say who is better off? It is not necessarily the one with the most money. However, that is how society ranks people. Government should stay out of these affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 If they are not repulsed, why do they think they need help? The guy sitting on the sidewalk clutching a bottle of cheap wine in a paper bag could be just as happy as the millionaire that just lost big on Bay Street, but is still a millionaire. Is he likely to chat up the bum, or give him a wide berth as he passes? Maybe the millionaire is hunchbacked and walks with a limp, while the wino has charisma and a whole string of babes at the hostel. Who is to say who is better off? It is not necessarily the one with the most money. However, that is how society ranks people. Government should stay out of these affairs. Only hard core social justice advocates believe this. Most of the democrat party has, unfortunately, submitted. When it really comes down to it, the most racist people in the country are the champions of minorities. The most elitist are the champions of the poor and disabled. The most closed minded are champions of new ideas. The most atheistic are champions of Islam. Who better to interpret the motivations of discrimination than the ones with the most personal experience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Most of the democrat party has, unfortunately, submitted. When it really comes down to it, the most racist people in the country are the champions of minorities. Most of the republic party has, unfortunately submitted too. And we know what minority the republic party champions . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Which one am I? LOL It's nice to see that you have a sense of humor about it. I do go back and forth about which one is you because I think you fit both, but in the end I think you fit this... And Edstock is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Most of the republic party has, unfortunately submitted too. And we know what minority the republic party champions . . . Eh, are you refering to jews? That's more of a foreign policy position... Otherwise I haven't the slightest clue... Care to clarify that? Edited July 30, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 They also have no sense of humor. Beautify America, get rid of poor, ugly people. Use 'em for land-fill. However, the emergence of King Corn and the blizzard of junk food that the poor consume does make you wonder at the morality of selling to the obese. Back in the 50's when it became apparent that a large segment of Americans, primarily men in their forties were dying from heart disease, the baking industry started to include niacin, riboflavin and other vitamins and the problem seemed to go away. Fifty years later, it's super-size those fries! As to "caustic nicknames", the caustic is in the mind of the reader. Goppers gotta think what they gotta think — if, as and when they ever get around to actually thinking. You will note that knee-jerk does not qualify as "thinking". And that's their problem: since Bill Buckley died, and the Baggers have become the "core" of the GOP, they don't have anyone who can espouse the conservative viewpoint without sounding like they are Taliban-Lite. The GOP has got to be "for" something positive, but as it is now, they are "against". Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? A mean-spirited question that shows the sociopathic attitudes of too many Goppers. Aren't you from Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? As Edsock clearly demonstrates, liberals will not even consider the possibility. Liberalism is a religion, and religious people are good and righteous. To admit that unemployment benefits do more harm than good would be to admit that their religion is false. People with money who feel the need to help people with less money believe that having money automatically makes them superior. Once they have put someone on the dole, that person will never be equal to them. It doesn't matter if it costs two dollars to give one dollar. There are many things that make up a person. The main one is health and longevity. The next is mental stability. The next is the balance between determination to better one's self and enjoyment of life. Steer clear of groups that seek to indoctrinate you. Focus on your own self, family, community, country, in that order. It is not selfish to put yourself first, despite what religions preach, because if you are not right, how can you do for others? If you follow this, you will have money. If you skip all of this, and rely on government to support you, you will always be poor, and you will never be even as good as a brainwashed liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? As Edsock clearly demonstrates, liberals will not even consider the possibility. Liberalism is a religion, and religious people are good and righteous. To admit that unemployment benefits do more harm than good would be to admit that their religion is false. People with money who feel the need to help people with less money believe that having money automatically makes them superior. Once they have put someone on the dole, that person will never be equal to them. It doesn't matter if it costs two dollars to give one dollar. There are many things that make up a person. The main one is health and longevity. The next is mental stability. The next is the balance between determination to better one's self and enjoyment of life. Steer clear of groups that seek to indoctrinate you. Focus on your own self, family, community, country, in that order. It is not selfish to put yourself first, despite what religions preach, because if you are not right, how can you do for others? If you follow this, you will have money. If you skip all of this, and rely on government to support you, you will always be poor, and you will never be even as good as a brainwashed liberal. Can we not go into the religion thing again. Both sides operate where they can't be wrong because that creates too much noise in their head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? As Edsock clearly demonstrates, liberals will not even consider the possibility. Liberalism is a religion, and religious people are good and righteous. To admit that unemployment benefits do more harm than good would be to admit that their religion is false. Please supply some kind of PROOF that unemployment benefits increase unemployment. Otherwise, all we have here is your basic Trim brain-fart: sound and fury (and maybe a pale blue flame) signifying something or other maybe. Eh, are you refering to jews? That's more of a foreign policy position... Otherwise I haven't the slightest clue... Care to clarify that? Most of the Gopper elite are old white guys. You know, the kind with the expensive golf slacks and the white belts. That's the minority the GOP champions; the way they see it, billionaires are an endangered species, entitled to preservation. Aren't you from Canada? Yup. Aren't you from the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Do unemployment benefits increase unemployment? As Edsock clearly demonstrates, liberals will not even consider the possibility. It's a possibility. So can conservatives here now emphatically prove using scientific methods that it DOES and is not just a possibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.