Why won't anyone admit to being a republican?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

The Gentleman:

I would say about 8-10 weeks ago after his last suspension. Particularly in the last few months, it has gotten really nasty around this board and many members are finding that the only way to win in R&P is to just not post.

I've always seen this as inherent to any worthwhile debate... sort of like the "war games" solution.

This topic is emblematic of the problem: lots of name calling and calling out of members who are not participants. The problems with moderation in this board are another problem.

Well then, the problem is not that you can't win unless you don't paly, it's that you can't even enjoy yourself unless you don't play...

Nobody ever wins here (though I claim I won the gay marriage debate with the "single persons revolution" theory), but we always managed to have fun anyway.

You know as well as I do that a "win" in a conversation is not winning an argument, but having a good and constructive dialog where both sides gain insight and perspective, something that is approaching an impossibility on this board.

tstorm823:
Also, how do people get moderator action when I don't? I call people stupid and give snarky answers like once a week...

"Snarky answers" are not against the CoC, but the mod problem is the relative dearth of moderator action in many cases with sudden and seemingly arbitrary suspensions and bans in a few. We've brought up the issues of moderation in an earlier thread, and I was actually able to relay the desire for the return of "moderator action notes" (the bold phrases that used to end acted-on posts explaining why) to one of our moderators. That said, we're unfortunately left out on our own for the most part and moderators appear to not enter our board unless they're forced to by a plethora of reports.

The Gentleman:

But the mod problem is the relative dearth of moderator action in many cases with sudden and seemingly arbitrary suspensions and bans in a few. We've brought up the issues of moderation in an earlier thread, and I was actually able to relay the desire for the return of "moderator action notes" (the bold phrases that used to end acted-on posts explaining why) to one of our moderators. That said, we're unfortunately left out on our own for the most part and moderators appear to not enter our board unless they're forced to by a plethora of reports.

Yeah, but I tend to like it that way. There have only been a tiny handful of users I thought deserved any action at all (you know, the ones that fill the entire front page with rubbish and then get banned almost immediately).

Stagnant's current rampage is a bit questionable, but I certainly don't want moderators stepping in on it. I feel that we only need moderators for the users that don't really care if they can be here or not. If someone genuinely wants to stay a part, I'd hope the politics forum can manage to get along with them.

tstorm823:
Stagnant's current rampage is a bit questionable

I put some people on block and stopped frequenting the voter ID thread on Straight Dope Message Boards. My blood pressure should go down fairly soon, and along with it, my rageposting.

Stagnant:

I put some people on block and stopped frequenting the voter ID thread on Straight Dope Message Boards. My blood pressure should go down fairly soon, and along with it, my rageposting.

Well, this was a bit tragic...

If I lived in the US I would probably be a republican.

Though the reason people might hesitate to self identify as "republican", is because the R&P section of these forums is such a left wing circle jerk it is almost comical at times.

If I were American then I would be a Republican. But I'm Canadian, so all I can be is a Conservative.

The Gentleman:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
He was in the SCOTUS ACA ruling thread 5 weeks ago. That's the last I've seen of him.

I remember that, but that was a rare return for him and I haven't seen him since.

As I recall, Seekster said in a thread that he had life stuff going on more important to deal with than internet debating and so would be drastically reducing usage.

* * *

Ultimately, I get the impression that many right-wing Americans are hugely disillusioned with the Republican party. Perhaps they should be - it's still government in some form, after all. They still vote for it anyway because there's nothing practical better for them to vote for.

Ah I wondered why my ears were ringing. Now I know why.

Anyway contrary to what was mentioned earlier in this thread I'm not a Republican. I have little love for either the Democratic or Republican party in their current forms. They both play primarily between the 40 yard lines meaning they are more alike than anyone cares to admit.

Look at Bush v Obama. Where's the difference? Bush relied on government bail outs for big business, kept people on unemployment for far too long, and over extended our military in places they should either have never been in the first place or should have left long ago. Obama just doubled down on all that and called it a day. Hell, had McCain have won we'd practically be in the same place just with a different man in charge.

Neither side is really serious about cutting spending. Republicans will jump just as quickly as Democrats to throw money at their personal causes. It really strikes me as hypocritical to listen to Republicans talking about cutting social spending while they are wasting massive amounts of money on national defense. On the same note Democrats are fine with cutting defense funding but scatter like roaches from light at the mere mention of cutting social programs.

Take Chuck Grassley a Republican from Iowa, he talks a big game when it comes to cutting spending but when push comes to shove he's not voting against the massive ethanol subsidies he has funneling into his state. Damn near every elected official has similar causes and very few of them are willing to talk about cutting spending across the board.

The bottom line is that the elected officials that lead BOTH parties are more interested in staying elected officials than they are actually doing any good.

So it seems Stagnant has been suspended again because he can't control his feelings. Why am I not surprised?

recruit00:
So it seems Stagnant has been suspended again because he can't control his feelings. Why am I not surprised?

Well, he clearly can control his feelings, given just 7 punishments from nearly 2000 comments. It's possibly not the safest accusation for anyone without a clean record either: you actually have a higher number of punishments per posts than Stagnant.

It is also not safe to assume that mod wrath is necessarily incurred by loss of control of emotions. You can write extremely emotional posts but stick within forum guidelines, and be in control of your emotions and break them. Your comment there, for instance, could reasonably receive mod action for being a) inflammatory personal criticism, particularly being b) extraneous to the ongoing discussion. Despite not showing any particular loss of emotional control.

*sees name on Stags list*

ಠ_ಠ

I explained this to you already, I am A RINO (Republican In Name Only). Yes, I am registered to the Republican party. Yes, 8/10 times I will vote Republican. But there are issues I support on BOTH sides of the spectrum and I vote by ISSUES!, not party.

Xanthious:
Neither side is really serious about cutting spending. Republicans will jump just as quickly as Democrats to throw money at their personal causes.

That's not entirely true is it? Republicans simple think dogmatic. They don't want to raise taxes on their rich backers for any reason, no matter how good the reason, and want to cut back mainly on things that can't be cut back on.

Democrats realise to a greater extent that you can't just cut back on social spending when the services it provides are already below the absolute minimum a society needs, and are thus not enthousiastic about the dogmatic republican ideas.

Doesn't mean they're opposed to cuts as a whole (some of them might even be emo for all we know, and cut all the time), it just means they're opposed to blind cuts as a way to screw over poor people who really need those programs, to avoid millionaires having to pay $ 10 a month more in taxes.

Agema:

recruit00:
So it seems Stagnant has been suspended again because he can't control his feelings. Why am I not surprised?

Well, he clearly can control his feelings, given just 7 punishments from nearly 2000 comments. It's possibly not the safest accusation for anyone without a clean record either: you actually have a higher number of punishments per posts than Stagnant.

It is also not safe to assume that mod wrath is necessarily incurred by loss of control of emotions. You can write extremely emotional posts but stick within forum guidelines, and be in control of your emotions and break them. Your comment there, for instance, could reasonably receive mod action for being a) inflammatory personal criticism, particularly being b) extraneous to the ongoing discussion. Despite not showing any particular loss of emotional control.

He even had a thread about "lying in the R&P" recently, where he defended his actions of calling people "bags of pig-shit" because he felt they were "obviously trolling". I tried to inform him how to avoid future Mod-wrath by simply being polite when he told people off, or ignore them all together.

And you are correct, one CAN be very emotional and rude, and even get away with it, with just a bit of effort. For instance, observe; "You're a fucking moron who never went to school a single day in his life and obviously have placed his faith in a phony God that only morons believe in" - Going to get suspended.

"I honestly don't know if the school-system or social services where you live is functioning efficiently, because it seems that people are slipping through the cracks there..Maybe if more people actually went on with higher education, perhaps took a class or two in critical thinking, they would realize that arbitrary placing onces faith in an arbitrary and unprovable heaven-figure is a rather silly thing to do" - Not going to get suspended.

Stagnant, if you're reading, why don't you try it out?

Xan Krieger:

Kinguendo:
You dont tell the Jedi that you are a Sith.

Or the sith that you're a jedi.

Stagnant:
I'm particularly interested in hearing an explanation from:
- Seekster
- Gorfias
- Ravenshrike
- BOOM Headshot
...Unless I'm mistaken, all four of them have fairly consistently offered this behavior.

Surprised I'm not on the list.

You're not cool enough to be on a flame-list. Nah-nah!

The thing a lot of partisans don't understand is that not being democrat/republican doesn't make you the other. They may be consciously aware of the existence of moderates but deep in their mind its "You're with us or your against us."

Blablahb:
That's not entirely true is it? Republicans simple think dogmatic. They don't want to raise taxes on their rich backers for any reason, no matter how good the reason, and want to cut back mainly on things that can't be cut back on.

Democrats realise to a greater extent that you can't just cut back on social spending when the services it provides are already below the absolute minimum a society needs, and are thus not enthousiastic about the dogmatic republican ideas.

Doesn't mean they're opposed to cuts as a whole (some of them might even be emo for all we know, and cut all the time), it just means they're opposed to blind cuts as a way to screw over poor people who really need those programs, to avoid millionaires having to pay $ 10 a month more in taxes.

The left horribly oversell how actually needy the poor in America are though. 80% of poor households have air conditioning or central air. Over two thirds have cable or satellite television. Almost three fourths of poor families own at least one car while almost a third own multiple cars. Over half of poor families with children own a video game system. Meanwhile, a third of all poor families own a plasma or lcd television.

Beyond amenities like cable tv and central air, over 40% of America's poor own their home. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.

While it is true there are families out there in real need there are also many families out there either in need because of an unwillingness to work or not in need and simply gaming the system. One of the biggest areas of welfare being gamed is the food stamp program.

Currently one in seven Americans receive food stamps. That is up 100 percent from 4 years ago. The government actually encourages local offices to throw food stamp parties in order to get more people on the government dole.

The bottom line is that what qualifies for "poor" in America is a pretty wide range and a lot of families getting government assistance are anything but needy. Despite what some may claim there is plenty of social spending that could be cut and "the poor" would be just fine. Sure they might not be able to sit in central air and watch HBO on their plasma screen televisions but they would survive I imagine.

Xanthious:
The left horribly oversell how actually needy the poor in America are though. 80% of poor households have air conditioning or central air. Over two thirds have cable or satellite television. Almost three fourths of poor families own at least one car while almost a third own multiple cars. Over half of poor families with children own a video game system. Meanwhile, a third of all poor families own a plasma or lcd television.

Beyond amenities like cable tv and central air, over 40% of America's poor own their home. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.

While it is true there are families out there in real need there are also many families out there either in need because of an unwillingness to work or not in need and simply gaming the system. One of the biggest areas of welfare being gamed is the food stamp program.

Currently one in seven Americans receive food stamps. That is up 100 percent from 4 years ago. The government actually encourages local offices to throw food stamp parties in order to get more people on the government dole.

The bottom line is that what qualifies for "poor" in America is a pretty wide range and a lot of families getting government assistance are anything but needy. Despite what some may claim there is plenty of social spending that could be cut and "the poor" would be just fine. Sure they might not be able to sit in central air and watch HBO on their plasma screen televisions but they would survive I imagine.

Just about everything here: citation needed.

DrVornoff:

Xanthious:
The left horribly oversell how actually needy the poor in America are though. 80% of poor households have air conditioning or central air. Over two thirds have cable or satellite television. Almost three fourths of poor families own at least one car while almost a third own multiple cars. Over half of poor families with children own a video game system. Meanwhile, a third of all poor families own a plasma or lcd television.

Beyond amenities like cable tv and central air, over 40% of America's poor own their home. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.

While it is true there are families out there in real need there are also many families out there either in need because of an unwillingness to work or not in need and simply gaming the system. One of the biggest areas of welfare being gamed is the food stamp program.

Currently one in seven Americans receive food stamps. That is up 100 percent from 4 years ago. The government actually encourages local offices to throw food stamp parties in order to get more people on the government dole.

The bottom line is that what qualifies for "poor" in America is a pretty wide range and a lot of families getting government assistance are anything but needy. Despite what some may claim there is plenty of social spending that could be cut and "the poor" would be just fine. Sure they might not be able to sit in central air and watch HBO on their plasma screen televisions but they would survive I imagine.

Just about everything here: citation needed.

Those facts are straight from the census bureau or various other government reports feel free to look them up if you are really interested. I recommend Google personally.

Xanthious:

DrVornoff:

Xanthious:
The left horribly oversell how actually needy the poor in America are though. 80% of poor households have air conditioning or central air. Over two thirds have cable or satellite television. Almost three fourths of poor families own at least one car while almost a third own multiple cars. Over half of poor families with children own a video game system. Meanwhile, a third of all poor families own a plasma or lcd television.

Beyond amenities like cable tv and central air, over 40% of America's poor own their home. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.

While it is true there are families out there in real need there are also many families out there either in need because of an unwillingness to work or not in need and simply gaming the system. One of the biggest areas of welfare being gamed is the food stamp program.

Currently one in seven Americans receive food stamps. That is up 100 percent from 4 years ago. The government actually encourages local offices to throw food stamp parties in order to get more people on the government dole.

The bottom line is that what qualifies for "poor" in America is a pretty wide range and a lot of families getting government assistance are anything but needy. Despite what some may claim there is plenty of social spending that could be cut and "the poor" would be just fine. Sure they might not be able to sit in central air and watch HBO on their plasma screen televisions but they would survive I imagine.

Just about everything here: citation needed.

Those facts are straight from the census bureau or various other government reports feel free to look them up if you are really interested. I recommend Google personally.

I would argue that those aren't really the issues. The issue in the US is class mobility. It's ironic that the US constantly talks about the "American Dream" and how it said that if you work hard enough you'll get it while class mobility in the US is plainly disastrous. Handing out money to the poor plain and simple is the worst you can do, what you need to do is offer cheap services that everyone needs. Cheap universities and healthcare comes to mind. A poor american might be able to get a bigger house than a middle class european. But a poor european doesn't need to fear healthcare bills and can send his children to quality universities without fearing bankruptcy.

Xanthious:
Those facts are straight from the census bureau or various other government reports feel free to look them up if you are really interested. I recommend Google personally.

It's generally considered good form to post the links yourself instead of asking me to do all the work. Also generals has already pointed out one of the weak links in your logic.

As an aside, I don't recommend getting smug with me.

generals3:
I would argue that those aren't really the issues. The issue in the US is class mobility. It's ironic that the US constantly talks about the "American Dream" and how it said that if you work hard enough you'll get it while class mobility in the US is plainly disastrous. Handing out money to the poor plain and simple is the worst you can do, what you need to do is offer cheap services that everyone needs. Cheap universities and healthcare comes to mind. A poor american might be able to get a bigger house than a middle class european. But a poor european doesn't need to fear healthcare bills and can send his children to quality universities without fearing bankruptcy.

The issues you bring up may indeed be important but if there was massive welfare overhaul getting rid of some of the fraud and needless benefits given out to people either too lazy to better themselves or simply gaming the system then maybe we could put more money into the things you mentioned.

As I continue to say there is massive amounts of waste currently in America's social spending. More stringent means testing would be a good place to start. Another area could be severely limiting the types of food you can buy with food stamps to simple things that cover the basics. There is simply no reason the American tax payers need to be picking up the tab on some food stamp recipient's steak dinners. Hell if you really want to go crazy maybe cancel a few of those parties the government throws to sign people up for food stamps.

Admittedly there is just as much waste in defense spending and that too needs looked at. There is simply no reason we need troops in so many countries and fighting wars that are as close to unwinnable as makes no difference.

Ideally we would start by everyone taking a cut in funding of a few percentages. However, few politicians, either Republican or Democrat, are willing to cut their sacred cows for the good of the country. Eventually, if left unchecked, this will all come to a head and America will be little better than the hot mess that is Greece. We can either cut spending now on our own or have it cut for us when the money simply runs out.

generals3:

Xanthious:

DrVornoff:

Just about everything here: citation needed.

Those facts are straight from the census bureau or various other government reports feel free to look them up if you are really interested. I recommend Google personally.

I would argue that those aren't really the issues. The issue in the US is class mobility. It's ironic that the US constantly talks about the "American Dream" and how it said that if you work hard enough you'll get it while class mobility in the US is plainly disastrous. Handing out money to the poor plain and simple is the worst you can do, what you need to do is offer cheap services that everyone needs. Cheap universities and healthcare comes to mind. A poor american might be able to get a bigger house than a middle class european. But a poor european doesn't need to fear healthcare bills and can send his children to quality universities without fearing bankruptcy.

You should really bring the sources to a debate. We can just assume you're lying because you provide no sources. And don't expect people to look it up themselves. Takes too much time and it's not our job.

recruit00:

generals3:

Xanthious:

Those facts are straight from the census bureau or various other government reports feel free to look them up if you are really interested. I recommend Google personally.

I would argue that those aren't really the issues. The issue in the US is class mobility. It's ironic that the US constantly talks about the "American Dream" and how it said that if you work hard enough you'll get it while class mobility in the US is plainly disastrous. Handing out money to the poor plain and simple is the worst you can do, what you need to do is offer cheap services that everyone needs. Cheap universities and healthcare comes to mind. A poor american might be able to get a bigger house than a middle class european. But a poor european doesn't need to fear healthcare bills and can send his children to quality universities without fearing bankruptcy.

You should really bring the sources to a debate. We can just assume you're lying because you provide no sources. And don't expect people to look it up themselves. Takes too much time and it's not our job.

"Parental income is a better predictor of a child's future in America than in much of Europe, implying that social mobility is less powerful."
http://www.economist.com/node/15908469

"One of the most distressing aspects of the state of the US economy is the decrease in social mobility.

It is much, much harder now than it used to be for Americans to improve their circumstances.

In other words, if Americans are born poor, they're overwhelmingly likely to stay poor.

Similarly, if Americans are born rich, they have a much better chance of staying rich than someone born poor or middle class."
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-is-now-a-myth-2012-6

"Countries are ranked by highest intergenerational mobility, which is indicated by a lower International Partial Correlation (IPC). Norway is the most mobile, and the United States the least mobile."
http://www.photius.com/rankings/intergenerational_mobility_2005.html

I hope that's enough.

Xanthious:
The issues you bring up may indeed be important but if there was massive welfare overhaul getting rid of some of the fraud and needless benefits given out to people either too lazy to better themselves or simply gaming the system then maybe we could put more money into the things you mentioned.

Can you offer us any sort of indication that's actually a problem of a size it's even worth mentioning?

Because ussually when people bring that up (remember the drug testing for benefits and it failing spectacularly?) it turns out they're staring at microscopic problems that cost more to solve than they are to ignore and focus on the big issues.

If anything the US social spending needs to be increased. For one thing, pension obligations are going to bankrupt several states, cities and other things. At the same time, many Americans have no pension at all. Sounds like there's a system that could use being rebuilt from the ground up.

Xanthious:
Ideally we would start by everyone taking a cut in funding of a few percentages. However, few politicians, either Republican or Democrat, are willing to cut their sacred cows for the good of the country.

I'd say the debt ceiling agreement showed the democrats are quite willing to compromise. Probably far too much even when the pressure is really on.

recruit00:

generals3:

Xanthious:

Those facts are straight from the census bureau or various other government reports feel free to look them up if you are really interested. I recommend Google personally.

I would argue that those aren't really the issues. The issue in the US is class mobility. It's ironic that the US constantly talks about the "American Dream" and how it said that if you work hard enough you'll get it while class mobility in the US is plainly disastrous. Handing out money to the poor plain and simple is the worst you can do, what you need to do is offer cheap services that everyone needs. Cheap universities and healthcare comes to mind. A poor american might be able to get a bigger house than a middle class european. But a poor european doesn't need to fear healthcare bills and can send his children to quality universities without fearing bankruptcy.

You should really bring the sources to a debate. We can just assume you're lying because you provide no sources. And don't expect people to look it up themselves. Takes too much time and it's not our job.

Its a fairly well known fact.. It literally comes up all the time on theese forums, that being said he provided sources. If that isnt enough I got about twenty articles in PDQ lying aroun somewhere.

Xanthious:

The left horribly oversell how actually needy the poor in America are though. 80% of poor households have air conditioning or central air. Over two thirds have cable or satellite television. Almost three fourths of poor families own at least one car while almost a third own multiple cars. Over half of poor families with children own a video game system. Meanwhile, a third of all poor families own a plasma or lcd television.

ZOMFG! These so-called 'poor' people have something to do with their unproductive time besides staring at a wall in meditation upon their wretchedness! Cancel ALL WELFARE FOREVER!@!!11

So, how rich does an American need to be before they can go and splurge on leukemia treatment?

Nikolaz72:

recruit00:

You should really bring the sources to a debate. We can just assume you're lying because you provide no sources. And don't expect people to look it up themselves. Takes too much time and it's not our job.

Its a fairly well known fact.. It literally comes up all the time on theese forums, that being said he provided sources. If that isnt enough I got about twenty articles in PDQ lying aroun somewhere.

Less talky, more linky.

arbane:

Nikolaz72:

recruit00:

You should really bring the sources to a debate. We can just assume you're lying because you provide no sources. And don't expect people to look it up themselves. Takes too much time and it's not our job.

Its a fairly well known fact.. It literally comes up all the time on theese forums, that being said he provided sources. If that isnt enough I got about twenty articles in PDQ lying aroun somewhere.

Less talky, more linky.

I shall PM them to you once I gathered a good list. Its a bit late though, I will dig it up tomorrow. Social mobility in the US sucks and most people demanding links right now knows it, have argued it before in terms of the healthcare and education. And probably just wishes to waste my time in order to prove somekinda smug point. But I shall oblidge.

In the meantime you can have fun with Generals 3 sourcelinks.

Nikolaz72:

arbane:

Nikolaz72:

Its a fairly well known fact.. It literally comes up all the time on theese forums, that being said he provided sources. If that isnt enough I got about twenty articles in PDQ lying aroun somewhere.

Less talky, more linky.

I shall PM them to you once I gathered a good list. Its a bit late though, I will dig it up tomorrow. Social mobility in the US sucks and most people demanding links right now knows it, have argued it before in terms of the healthcare and education. And probably just wishes to waste my time in order to prove somekinda smug point. But I shall oblidge.

In the meantime you can have fun with Generals 3 sourcelinks.

Don't send it to ME, I don't give a deep-fried hamster poot. Post 'em here so the screaming weasels can pick them apart.

All I mean is that if you SAY you can back something up, back it up THEN, don't wait for one of us mean-spirited 'fact'-wanters to call you on it.

arbane:

Nikolaz72:

arbane:

Less talky, more linky.

I shall PM them to you once I gathered a good list. Its a bit late though, I will dig it up tomorrow. Social mobility in the US sucks and most people demanding links right now knows it, have argued it before in terms of the healthcare and education. And probably just wishes to waste my time in order to prove somekinda smug point. But I shall oblidge.

In the meantime you can have fun with Generals 3 sourcelinks.

Don't send it to ME, I don't give a deep-fried hamster poot. Post 'em here so the screaming weasels can pick them apart.

All I mean is that if you SAY you can back something up, back it up THEN, don't wait for one of us mean-spirited 'fact'-wanters to call you on it.

The screaming weasels? You mean Recruit?. . . I dont think his no weasel, and you are the one to use caps. Not him, xD. That being said, I think he wants to be informed about this. Not argue, thats what long articles are for. If I wanted to prove a point I'd show a graph.

Nikolaz72:

arbane:

Nikolaz72:

I shall PM them to you once I gathered a good list. Its a bit late though, I will dig it up tomorrow. Social mobility in the US sucks and most people demanding links right now knows it, have argued it before in terms of the healthcare and education. And probably just wishes to waste my time in order to prove somekinda smug point. But I shall oblidge.

In the meantime you can have fun with Generals 3 sourcelinks.

Don't send it to ME, I don't give a deep-fried hamster poot. Post 'em here so the screaming weasels can pick them apart.

All I mean is that if you SAY you can back something up, back it up THEN, don't wait for one of us mean-spirited 'fact'-wanters to call you on it.

The screaming weasels? You mean Recruit?. . . I dont think his no weasel, and you are the one to use caps. Not him, xD. That being said, I think he wants to be informed about this. Not argue, thats what long articles are for. If I wanted to prove a point I'd show a graph.

I'm not making a big deal about it. He did bring sources so I have no issues there.

arbane:
screaming weasels

If I ever give up on my rap career and decide to be a rocker I want that to be the name of my band.

As for the thread, while I agree that a suspiciously large number of people were suddenly describing themselves as libertarian the moment Bush Jr.'s popularity started to plummet, it's pretty uncool to call specific individuals out on it. I mean, the only real measure if someone truly is a Democrat or Republican is if they have run for office as a Democrat or Republican or in certain states voted in one of the parties' primaries. Short of proving to the board that you've been rifling though other posters' wallets to find their party membership ID cards all you can ever claim is that they really really often agree with Republicans.

And if that's the case, so what? I really, really often agree with Democrats. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a left-leaning independent who refuses to align with any political party about half out of principle and half out of a personality flaw where I don't like aligning myself with any organization. But really apart from apparently many anti-theists in the US being Democrats I agree with Democrats all the time. But someone claiming I am a Democrat would still be wrong.

Claiming someone isn't really a part of the organization they claim to be a part of without some damn convincing evidence (meaning that organization has official membership rolls that the person in question can be shown to be on or not be on) is just really poor form. It seems like another form of attacking the group, not the actions of people who have done wrong.

Elcarsh:
It's a question of credibility. They think, quite rightly, that actually being a republican supporter means nobody will give a shit about your assessment of something related to the republican party. People will just see them as, to use a term I abhor personally, "fanboys".

So, they deny being republican supporters, thinking that means people will view their opinions as more objective and detached from political leanings. Of course, it doesn't work, because it's bullshit from start to finish.

I have a coffee shop friend who goes out to collect signatures for Green Peace who told me that he went and registered republican just so he can use the line "Look here, I'm a registered republican..." without feeling like he was being dishonest.

Blablahb:
If anything the US social spending needs to be increased. For one thing, pension obligations are going to bankrupt several states, cities and other things. At the same time, many Americans have no pension at all. Sounds like there's a system that could use being rebuilt from the ground up.

Part of the problem is the way that they tax and the way that they spend, at least in some places. Here they come up with creative ways of getting more taxes and revenue and then spend the revenue before they even get it. This creates particular problems when their creativity works better than expected.

For instance: They increased gasoline tax saying that it was necessary to reduce consumption of a limited resource, reduce pollution, fight global warming, get cars off the road to reduce traffic and road wear, and hey we could use some more money for road upkeep too. Well what a damn good idea. It passed. They also spent plenty of money on ad campaigns encouraging people to drive less, carpool, and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The result was an unintended success. They just really wanted the revenue but wouldn't you know it people actually started driving less, carpooling more, and buying such fuel efficient vehicles that the state never got the level of revenue that was projected and wound up in the hole because they had already spent that money. I now get to live in dread of what they will push on us next to make up for the fact that they have no where enough money to maintain our roads. The scary proposal is that we will all have to pay to have gps units installed in our vehicles so that the government can record our driving habits and tax us based on when, where, and how much we drive.

I wish they would just add a percent or two to our income taxes and get it over with.

Xanthious:
[snip]

I think this is distinctly misleading though.

A lot of the appliances those reports are talking about there range from the very cheap like microwaves ($50?) to consoles or LCD TV at a few $hundred. If they've been acquired on sale or second hand, considerably less.

Now consider they probably last about ten years on average before needing replacement. Very quickly, you'll see the annual expenditure is actually extremely small - a few hundred dollars a year, 1-2% of a low income household budget. Feeding a family of four for about $20 a day however would cost over $7000 a year.

Put in that light, the cost of household appliances is utterly trivial - and makes a fair difference between a modern living standard and the living standards of the mid-20th century. We're not there to give the poor holidays in Bermuda, but we can at least ensure their home experience isn't near-indistinguishable from their great-grandparents.

Agema:

Xanthious:
[snip]

I think this is distinctly misleading though.

A lot of the appliances those reports are talking about there range from the very cheap like microwaves ($50?) to consoles or LCD TV at a few $hundred. If they've been acquired on sale or second hand, considerably less.

Now consider they probably last about ten years on average before needing replacement. Very quickly, you'll see the annual expenditure is actually extremely small - a few hundred dollars a year, 1-2% of a low income household budget. Feeding a family of four for about $20 a day however would cost over $7000 a year.

Put in that light, the cost of household appliances is utterly trivial - and makes a fair difference between a modern living standard and the living standards of the mid-20th century. We're not there to give the poor holidays in Bermuda, but we can at least ensure their home experience isn't near-indistinguishable from their great-grandparents.

Look all I want to do is make sure I'm not picking up tab so the government can pay for some poor person's HBO. Social safety nets are supposed to be just that, saftey nets. Many American social programs are being gamed and defrauded by people who simply don't need them or refuse to improve their place in life enough to get off of them.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the food stamp program which I will continue to bring up. The food stamp program needs a massive overhaul. First and foremost the government should not be throwing parties at local offices to promote and encourage people to come and sign up for social programs. People should be signing up for social programs out of a genuine need not because they just dropped a party for some free punch and pie.

What I would like to see done in order to get that one particular program in check is to severely limit the foods that qualify to be purchased to things like bread, milk, cereal, cheese, some inexpensive meats, etc. There is simply no reason the tax payers should be picking up the bill on things like Oreos or T bone steak or chips or soda.

I'm not looking to throw poor people out in the street. However, if they are sitting in central air watching cable television and eating Doritos on tax payer dollars maybe it's time we take a second look at just how needy they actually are. Maybe we put in lifetime limits on just how much of certain programs able bodied adults can use.

Meanwhile if people want to pay so the poor can have things like cable television and iPhones I say more power to them. They should go file their 990 paperwork and start up collecting money for just that cause. However, private citizens should not be forced into paying for these things by the government.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked