I think this comes more into play when people's basic needs aren't even met...not just about having more of a chance because of wealth, but recognizing that people can't even focus on self-actualization if their basic needs on the hierarchy aren't met.
I have a student whose parents both died before he was 8...never grew up with any strong family support and has a chronic health condition from birth...but damn if he isn't the hardest worker I know. The kid has a 4.0 with a double science major, works as an RA and in another college office and he is a student leader for a few different clubs. He's going off to medical school in the fall, but wouldn't have been able to do any of that without medicaid and tuition grants. He's worked his ass off for it, but is in a different position than someone who comes from a family who could provide healthcare and assist with tuition, food, clothing etc.
And just to respond to the early discussion about people in their 20s being healthy, since September I have met with a 19 year old student who was born with HIV, another 19 year old with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a 24 year old with breast cancer and a 26 year old with ovarian cancer. It will be a relief for them to stay on their parents' insurance and not to be denied for pre-existing conditions.
It is definitely harder for some folks. That student sounds like an amazing person. Glad those things were there for him/her.
As for the latter point about Obamacare - the issue with the pre-ex coverage is that it either won't be sufficient coverage (which the law tries to address), or more likely won't be affordable and those folks will be back in the same situation they are today, only with the added expense of paying the tax. The law does nothing to force people to take coverage when it is against their perceived benefit and more importantly does nothing to make health care itself more affordable. All it does is make insurance available to these folks. It doesn't really make it affordable. Unless they qualified for the broadened Medicaid provisions (which in NY, for example, really doesn't add that many folks), they will more likely be better off paying the tax and falling back on indigent care or whatever it does to pay the bills today. The law is mislabled.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And to address the rest of this - you are right - Romney wanted folks to die of starvation. :roll:
He actually whined about how 47% of the country who won't vote for him wouldn't vote for him BECAUSE "they think they're entitled to food."
To which I said "and just for that, you plutocratic, stuck up, obnoxious, blue-blood pig, I will do whatever I can to keep you from being elected."
Because there were many reasons to not vote for him, none of which were "I think the government should give me food."
Look... you know what... you people have been on this for four years with your phony indignation and trying to blame President Obama for your own inept President Bush who ruined the country and destroyed our way of life for a generation.
You clearly didn't get the memo that Republicans just got their asses handed to them and that the word from the top down is "tea 'tards are hereby banished from the party," but they were. Because it's this same line that you're giving us now that turned the majority of the country against you.
So pop your head out, take a deep breath and realize that you're just making a fool of yourself.
And it doesnt seem like you want people to have a chance to sink or swim. You want them to do what they want and get unlimited life jackets.
Actually... it's Republicans who want that.
They whine about how much money they pay in taxes and how the federal government is their enemy. They cry about how they should defund FEMA and throw fits about national health care.
And then hurricane Katrina takes out the bible belt (as a punishment for all the gay people there, according to Fox News) and they all stand around the cry about how FEMA didn't get there fast enough and how come there aren't more mobile hospitals for all the people.
They refuse to pay taxes because they're "taxed enough already" but when a road gets washed out, the power goes out or their house catches on fire... well BOY they sure get angry that nobody will get there FAST and fix it.
You're like Veruca Salt. Time to go away with the rest of the bad eggs.
Why are you laughing? You think it's funny that Paul Ryan wanted to outlaw forms of birth control? Because he does.
Find a single person who votes based on Vice President anyway .
Outlawing FORMS of birth control and outlawing birth control are 2 different things. And neither are happening, so why waste time on that?
As for Palin - really? There were Obama voters in 2008 that voted AGAINST Palin?
Again - the difference - I'm not saying folks don't dislike or are repulsed by a VP candidate. But, George Bush won with Dan Quayle and Barack Obama won with Joe Biden. Nobody's voting for or against a VP. There's plenty of studies out there on both sides that draw this conclusion pretty clearly.
I can give you my personal view on this. I am a married woman, also a (very) hard-working professional in a well paying job. My taxes will likely go up under Obama. I don't like it, but it won't really hurt me. I will never vote Republican while the party panders to the right-wing religious conservatives, with prominent republicans like Akin, Mourdock, Joe Walsh etc. making outrageous misogynistic statements and considering the rights of a fertilized egg to be more important than those of a fully grown woman. Romney by putting Ryan (co-sponsor of personhood legislation) on the ticket gave his implicit approval of extreme anti-choice views. I think this hurt him greatly with women independents, and I sincerely hope that the Republicans get the message, since I do agree with some of their fiscal conservative views. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I can't support Romney so I voted for Gary Johson this year.
And, by the way, I am one off those who voted anti-Palin in 2008. That ditz being one heartbeat away from the presidency (very scary with Mccain's age) was too scary to contemplate.
And it doesnt seem like you want people to have a chance to sink or swim. You want them to do what they want and get unlimited life jackets.
Actually... it's Republicans who want that.
They whine about how much money they pay in taxes and how the federal government is their enemy. They cry about how they should defund FEMA and throw fits about national health care.
And then hurricane Katrina takes out the bible belt (as a punishment for all the gay people there, according to Fox News) and they all stand around the cry about how FEMA didn't get there fast enough and how come there aren't more mobile hospitals for all the people.
They refuse to pay taxes because they're "taxed enough already" but when a road gets washed out, the power goes out or their house catches on fire... well BOY they sure get angry that nobody will get there FAST and fix it.
You're like Veruca Salt. Time to go away with the rest of the bad eggs.
So, in theory, you are saying, they were more worried about who would be President if the President died than the actual President if you voted?
That means one of 2 things:
1) They thought McCain was the better candidate than Obama, but fear of his health made them vote against this
2) They thought McCain and Obama were equal candidates and the tie breaker was who was more likely to die.
But, it definitely does not mean they thought Obama was the better candidate. Because, if they did, the VP is just icing for them. Not the REASON.
So, do your friends want to change their spoken reason to the real reason or just continue to sound like kooks?
Not sure why this is so shocking to you. Also not sure the relevance of whether or not Obama was the better candidate in their minds. Again, these aren't my votes. But I do have three friends who were undecideds in the final days before the election - two independents, one Republican. Each of them stated after the fact that the deciding factor was a fear of putting Palin that close to the Presidency. You think that makes someone a kook. I 100% disagree.
I understand that you are arguing to argue and that maybe that is your schtick, but people who consider both the top and bottom of a ticket aren't foolish, kookish, uninformed, or wasting their vote.
The notion that people vote so that other people pay more and they don't? That's not a notion, it's a reality.
But it is only 1 of the items on the list.
What 'other people' are you referring to here? Are these 'other people' so hard-up that a slight increase in their taxes will hurt them? And is Obama even talking about increasing the taxes of these 'other people', or is he talking about ending tax breaks for these 'other people', such as those they receive for using and maintaining private jets, yachts, and golf-courses?
You need to drop the routine. You know exactly who I am talking about. Everyone does. And it;s a reality that it is very easy to vote for someone else to pay more.
You need to stop telling me what I should and shouldn't do. You can also drop all the snide comments. It got old a long time ago.
As for the fantasy you're pushing: that people voted for Obama so that they could sit on their asses and let the 1% take care of them...that's all it is; a fantasy. Nothing to do with reality.
Your guy lost the election. Maybe you should be looking at yourself and at your own candidate's failings, instead of deluding yourself about the whys and wherefore's of Obama's victory.
Have you heard the parable about the 8 guys that go to a bar to buy beers every week? I'll cut to the chase - the "rich" guy leaves and the other 7 guys stare at each other wondering how they are going to get their beer.
Have you heard the parable about the guy with his head in his ass who kept asking why the room was dark and smelled so bad?
I'll cut to the chase...
The election is over
The voting is done
Your party lost
My party won
O let us be friends
Let's do this with class
And I'll hug your elephant
If You'll kiss my Ass
Reagan had a much worse situation and it took him less than 18 months.
...with a helping hand, in the form of the Third World debt crisis in mid-1982, which the Reagan administration pounced on like vultures, as it enabled them to squeeze the Third World dry and fill their coffers.
I've heard of sore losers before, but the sore winners are tough to listen to. So many insults and hate speech.
Oh I'm sorry.
Am I spiking the ball too loudly?
Well that's just rude, isn't it?
And after four years of having to listen to people shouting about "your socialist emperor" and "the messiah" and "1 and done" and about 4 threads even here congratulating Mitt Romney for winning... After countless people attacking liberals and saying we're lazy (I work a full time job and own a production company in my spare time) and saying we feel we're "entitled to food," I think we've earned a few dances in the end zone.
And... as a member of the gay community that - for the first time EVER - finally beat NOM at their hate campaign against us, I get to do one last little one...
above all, we want everyone to have the same chance. just a fucking chance, to make something out of ourselves. just a chance to sink or swim on our own and not be held back by anyone or anything. a chance to make something out of ourselves.
How are folks held back from making something of themselves? I'm interested to hear that one.
Sure, there are folks that start out ahead. So what? It's not a zero sum game. Just because one person does well because they started out ahead doesn't mean someone else can't make something of themselves.
This is what holds folks back. I did better than my father did. He did better than his father did. He did better than his father did. Then, I lose track of my ancestry. I didn't have Kim Kardashian's wealth or ass. But, somehow, I'm doing ok. Who cares what her wealth is?
If anything, Obama's agenda holds people back by making them dependent on the government.
Please explain how folks are held back because we don't take more money from the "rich?"
people are held back from making something of themselves by being born into generation after generation of poverty. you and the republicans want to cut help for those people. incidently, you all are against affirmative action and you want to cut financial aid and student loans and grant for college. those things help get people out of poverty. that education is necessary to give people a chance. you cut that stuff you are creating another generation of poor and creating desperate people in desperate circumstances and some do desperate things like turn to crime to get what they need. some even commit crime to go to jail to be taken care of by the system. do you not see how one of those things relates to all of the others? i thought you were intelligent enough to connect the dots. your point of view exemplifies the cold, selfish views of the republican party. as long as you have yours, fuck everybody else, right?
folks that start out ahead rarely go downward, while people that start out in the lower and poor class rarely go up. there are a lot more people moving up from middle to upper class than poor to middle, and the wealthy never ever go down. that is a generational thing. they all live off of the money made by those that came before them. just like mitt romney.
obama does not make people dependant on government. can you explain how he supposedly does that?
did you know that there is a lifetime time limit that one can be on welfare and food stamps?? thank bill clinton for that one. but he won't get credit for that one either i guess..... :roll:
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
probably the same things most of us want. this is just from the top of my head....
1 safety
2 health insurance and access to care
3 we never want to die of starvation
4 we want control over our bodies
5 we want all people, women, men, gay, straight, black, white, latino, asian, etc to have equal rights
6 we want government to work for us, not have a minority party stonewall and block every possible initiative
7 we want to have peace and not be bombing the shit out of other countries because we are scared, we don't want to be paranoid or scared
8 we want god out of government and god out of our public schools (as an aside, i want god bless america taken out of the 7th inning stretch of baseball games, 9/11 was 11 years ago, we can stop with that shit now)
9 we want quality education for all
10 we want to stop harming the planet and we want alternative fuels. we want everyone to acknowledge that the plant is warming and this is going to only lead to more devestating storms, more death and destruction.
And to address the rest of this - you are right - Romney wanted folks to die of starvation. :roll:
And, what's the big deal with God Bless America in the 7th inning? Better to have Sweet Caroline when your team sucks?
I'm not religious at all. I think it's stupid and causes more problems than it solves (though some people do use it for good, which shouldn't be ignored either). But, the sentiment of the song is not that we believe in god or that it protects us (well, I'm sure some people take the literal translation). I take it as we are happy for out country and proud to be Americans. Kind of funny that the left doesn't want folks telling them what to do, but they are worried over a song. If you don't like it, don't stand when you're at the game and flip the channel when you're watching it on tv. Not sure why you'd even bring this up in such a non-sequitor kind of way. If you want to let people do what they want, this is part of what you get. You can't have it both ways. Oh, right - you only want it YOUR way.
you addressed the rest of this???
you addressed one point, the dying of starvation, which is exactly what you are gonna get if people like ryan and romney get in there and start cutting food stamps and welfare.
the other thing you addressed was my own opinion that god bless america is worn out at baseball games. with american players being nearly a minority in major league baseball, seems kind of insulting to the rest of the non-american players.
what about numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, the main point of number 9 and not the aside, and number 10???
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
probably the same things most of us want. this is just from the top of my head....
1 safety
2 health insurance and access to care
3 we never want to die of starvation
4 we want control over our bodies
5 we want all people, women, men, gay, straight, black, white, latino, asian, etc to have equal rights
6 we want government to work for us, not have a minority party stonewall and block every possible initiative
7 we want to have peace and not be bombing the shit out of other countries because we are scared, we don't want to be paranoid or scared
8 we want god out of government and god out of our public schools (as an aside, i want god bless america taken out of the 7th inning stretch of baseball games, 9/11 was 11 years ago, we can stop with that shit now)
9 we want quality education for all
10 we want to stop harming the planet and we want alternative fuels. we want everyone to acknowledge that the plant is warming and this is going to only lead to more devestating storms, more death and destruction.
above all, we want everyone to have the same chance. just a fucking chance, to make something out of ourselves. just a chance to sink or swim on our own and not be held back by anyone or anything. a chance to make something out of ourselves.
i think that is just a start to what most obama voters want.
Pretty good miss America speech you have there though. Problem is, Obama is not going to help with some of those, but I guess you think he'd help more than Romney.
And it doesnt seem like you want people to have a chance to sink or swim. You want them to do what they want and get unlimited life jackets.
miss america list? whatever man. i am just saying that that list is representative of what many obama voters want.
and yes, obama would help with more of them than romney would have.
what is wrong with multiple life jackets? the vast majority of americans are not going to need more than one. and even if some need more than one, what is wrong with investing in people so that they can help themselves???
did you know that most states pay up to 60 percent of college costs? at least they did when i went. now missouri pays something like 38% and passes the rest onto the student. universities are pricing themselves out of many peoples' price ranges. thus taking opportunities away from the less fortunate.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I just don't understand why democrats who want a level playing field where everyone has a chance through a quality education, safe neighborhoods and the same opportunities in life for everyone are considered people who want to just give people money for their whole lives and not have them work for it. It's so idiotic and I expect it from people like O'Reilly and Hannity, but come on.
The election is over
The voting is done
Your party lost
My party won
O let us be friends
Let's do this with class
And I'll hug your elephant
If You'll kiss my Ass
I think this comes more into play when people's basic needs aren't even met...not just about having more of a chance because of wealth, but recognizing that people can't even focus on self-actualization if their basic needs on the hierarchy aren't met.
I have a student whose parents both died before he was 8...never grew up with any strong family support and has a chronic health condition from birth...but damn if he isn't the hardest worker I know. The kid has a 4.0 with a double science major, works as an RA and in another college office and he is a student leader for a few different clubs. He's going off to medical school in the fall, but wouldn't have been able to do any of that without medicaid and tuition grants. He's worked his ass off for it, but is in a different position than someone who comes from a family who could provide healthcare and assist with tuition, food, clothing etc.
And just to respond to the early discussion about people in their 20s being healthy, since September I have met with a 19 year old student who was born with HIV, another 19 year old with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a 24 year old with breast cancer and a 26 year old with ovarian cancer. It will be a relief for them to stay on their parents' insurance and not to be denied for pre-existing conditions.
It is definitely harder for some folks. That student sounds like an amazing person. Glad those things were there for him/her.
As for the latter point about Obamacare - the issue with the pre-ex coverage is that it either won't be sufficient coverage (which the law tries to address), or more likely won't be affordable and those folks will be back in the same situation they are today, only with the added expense of paying the tax. The law does nothing to force people to take coverage when it is against their perceived benefit and more importantly does nothing to make health care itself more affordable. All it does is make insurance available to these folks. It doesn't really make it affordable. Unless they qualified for the broadened Medicaid provisions (which in NY, for example, really doesn't add that many folks), they will more likely be better off paying the tax and falling back on indigent care or whatever it does to pay the bills today. The law is mislabled.
The student I mentioned really is an amazing person. I am so in awe of him. The cool thing is that I've seen many, many similar examples. My perception may be skewed because the people I've come in contact with are the ones who have come from backgrounds of extreme trauma and neglect, but who have also worked hard and sought an opportunity. I worked for a domestic violence agency for years and we ran a transitional housing program for families rendered homeless as a result of domestic violence. So many of the survivors in that program had experienced violence and neglect since birth and then entered into their own abusive relationships as adults. It took such a dramatic amount of strength to leave a lifetime of abuse...and the biggest barriers were affordable housing and childcare. So we provided that while they went back to school or got job training. And they worked their asses off. I guess we could say they got "governmental handouts," but really they just wanted an opportunity. And now in my current job I see the students that overcame similar kinds of barriers, but also needed assistance such as educational grants to make the most of their opportunity. It might just be that the settings where I've worked are more likely to bring me into contact with those who have the strongest work ethic, but I have seen the difference an opportunity (not a handout) can make.
Well fortunately the students I mentioned already have good health insurance through their parents, so for them the most important thing is to be able to stay on that insurance during their treatments and not being rejected for pre-existing condition. I know there are a lot of flaws with Obamacare, but it was a step.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
But, the election was clearly decided by folks pocket books and not their uteri (is that the plural?). Even in immigration - it comes down to $$$$. Does anyone really think a single mom with 2 kids and no job is voting based on abortion rights, gay rights and clean energy?
Abortion rights.. Yeah, a single mother of two probably does have her own ideas about who gets to choose her reproductive health options. And she sure isn't going with the party who closed down the planned parenthood clinic where she gets her breast cancer screenings.
But she also probably voted on making sure affordable healthcare for her children would be available. She voted on wether she could not have her children taught creationism and abstinence in school.
And if that single mother is a lesbian... Yeah... "Gay rights" might be a big factor (although like me, she might call it "personal equality").
And if she has no job... She sure isn't going to vote for the asshole who railed on her because she's a lazy moocher who feels she's "entitled to food."
Good points. And as a married woman who is trying to have a baby I too want a say about my reproductive health options. I value the reproductive health care that Planned Parenthood provides to women, such as breast cancer screenings, HPV screenings and family planning. I don't want the government to tell me that my life and my physical health is less valuable than a product of a violent crime perpetrated against me. And I don't want the government minimizing rape and telling me whether it's a real crime or not. I want the people I care about to have the right to marry whomever they love and to not be treated as "less than" by the government. I want the people I work with to have access to educational grants and student loans and have help removing the barriers to the educational opportunities others were lucky enough to be born into. And I don't want the leader of my country to be so out of touch that he tells people to borrow money to start a business from their parents if they need to...forgetting that there is a huge segment of the population who don't even have parents to turn to, let alone parents who have that kind of money available. And I don't want him to dismiss me as a victim who is dependent on the government when I work 70 hours a week simply because I vote for the other side.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
And I don't want him to dismiss me as a victim who is dependent on the government when I work 70 hours a week simply because I vote for the other side.
See... when you say something THAT clueless... that obnoxious... Saying that "the people who don't plan to vote for me are all a bunch of lazy moochers who want everything for free" is just the kind of thing I'd expect from a snobby rich brat who never had to work a day in his life.
And the news stories that he was reeling and shell shocked that he lost... love it.
The news stories that he hadn't prepared a concession speech and had to go with one written "just in case'" by an aide... priceless.
That he'd spent $25,000 on a fireworks show that never got fired... brilliant.
I just don't understand why democrats who want a level playing field where everyone has a chance through a quality education, safe neighborhoods and the same opportunities in life for everyone are considered people who want to just give people money for their whole lives and not have them work for it. It's so idiotic and I expect it from people like O'Reilly and Hannity, but come on.
it is easy to understand once you realize that the republicans demonize and scapegoat anyone who does not think like they do...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I am shocked that the Republicans keep making comments like "they want stuff." You cannot increase your voting base by insulting people who don't already vote for you. Even if Republicans believe the statement, wouldn't you think they'd be calculating enough not to say it out loud?
I just don't understand why democrats who want a level playing field where everyone has a chance through a quality education, safe neighborhoods and the same opportunities in life for everyone are considered people who want to just give people money for their whole lives and not have them work for it. It's so idiotic and I expect it from people like O'Reilly and Hannity, but come on.
it is easy to understand once you realize that the republicans demonize and scapegoat anyone who does not think like they do...
Or, you were being ironic? Very well then.
What's that you say? You were being serious? Oh. Ok. We don't see liberals doing any of that. Good point. You win, Gimme. I'll just page through the threads here on AMT. Yep. Right. None of that going on.
Just one question - what is 4 years of blaming Bush if not scapegoating? Oh!! That's right. You see the truth and nobody on the other side does. Again. Solid point.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
miss america list? whatever man. i am just saying that that list is representative of what many obama voters want.
and yes, obama would help with more of them than romney would have.
what is wrong with multiple life jackets? the vast majority of americans are not going to need more than one. and even if some need more than one, what is wrong with investing in people so that they can help themselves???
did you know that most states pay up to 60 percent of college costs? at least they did when i went. now missouri pays something like 38% and passes the rest onto the student. universities are pricing themselves out of many peoples' price ranges. thus taking opportunities away from the less fortunate.
Hey - first of all my miss america comment was not a cut down, just what popped into my head after I read your list. I think my style plays much better in person at the bar over a beer than over the internet, so sorry if I offended.
There is nothing wrong with multiple life jackets, but there has to be a limit. There has to be a point where enough is enough. In reality except on a few issues, I think most people are pretty close together on what they want and even on some of how to get there. Just like at a manufacturing plant in HR or as a school teacher, we seem to spend 90% of our time discussing the 10%...the problem 10%. I think part of the problem is we throw around terms such as "lazy", etc and people think we are talking about the entire 47%. That's not the case. I also don;t think you could apply the "less fortunate" to the entire population either. For some, they make the bed they lie in.
You know, I actually like Obama in many ways. I just got really turned off when, in my opinion, he made this an "Us vs. them" situation. I voted for him in 2008 to try and change that, and in my eyes, instead of changing it he escalated it (and I know that the republican leadership in the house played a huge role too). Then, he ran a campaign based upon, again, in my opinion, based upon taking more $ from tax payers with very little talk about spending cuts. He mentions his 2.5 to 1 ratio, but to be honest, I don;t believe him. My opinion is you must make the spending cuts, prove you are trust worthy, then I would be ok with increased tax revenue. Although, again, I disagree with his method of tax revenue growth as I would much prefer a complete overhaul of the tax code rather than just continuing to put lipstick on that pig.
There is without a doubt in my mind a segment of the population that believes the government owes them. Owes them food, shelter, etc. So I certainly think that population exists. And I do think it is very easy to get other people to vote for you if you are promising them different benefits with the idea that someone else will pay higher taxes to pay the bill. That's a no brainer. So that is a dangerous path in my mind.
That said, while pissed off that a guy running on a platform to raise taxes and more importantly a guy that in my mind broke the promise of bipartisanship that was important to me won the election (again, I wouldn't have voted for any of repub congressional leaders either), I am glad for a few reasons. I hope the issue of gay marriage will go away faster...because it is excepted. I hope that medical coverage is better for everyone without an extreme cost increase. While you and many disagree, I have respected his command of the military in regards to drones, etc, though more than I would like to see but I don;t have all the information he does. I'm concerned about taxes and blatant overspending (and yes GW did this when he didn;t have to). I'm concerned about the economy and businesses and the "China problem". I think someone else would have handled all of those better. Anyhow, end of rant that no one will read because it's too long.
it is easy to understand once you realize that the republicans demonize and scapegoat anyone who does not think like they do...
Oh, and this type of rhetoric comes straight from the party handbook...and is part of the problem. We all do it from time to time, usually after frustration sets in. But what you said is quite a generalization, and just wrong for most.
And I don't want him to dismiss me as a victim who is dependent on the government when I work 70 hours a week simply because I vote for the other side.
See... when you say something THAT clueless... that obnoxious... Saying that "the people who don't plan to vote for me are all a bunch of lazy moochers who want everything for free" is just the kind of thing I'd expect from a snobby rich brat who never had to work a day in his life.
And the news stories that he was reeling and shell shocked that he lost... love it.
The news stories that he hadn't prepared a concession speech and had to go with one written "just in case'" by an aide... priceless.
That he'd spent $25,000 on a fireworks show that never got fired... brilliant.
He's so out of touch that he doesn't even know he's out of touch. In his world everyone has parents. Even that basic assumption kills me. What about the people who don't have parents at all, or whose parents were neglectful or addicts or who prostituted them at the age of 5? And what about when those same people bust their ass through high school despite those situations, get to college, but don't have money for food let alone textbooks or tuition? Are they "victims" if they receive an educational grant or get linked up with food stamps and medicaid so that their basic needs are met while they make the most of an opportunity? Again, my perception may be skewed, but these are the people I know. The democrats, at least this democrat, are not about making people dependent; but instead about realizing that people are born into vastly different situations...situations that many of us are so fortunate that we can't even fathom them, and by removing barriers and providing an opportunity some people can really thrive. My goal is never to disempower people and make them dependent, but I can't really support them in their goals if my toolbox is empty. Things like the NJ STARS program and the educational opportunity fund are necessary for people to make their lives better. And while I may not personally benefit from some of Obama's and the democrats' policies, it matters more to me to provide an opportunity for someone else.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
2 quickies, both have little to do with who is president...
-the best social programs are initiated at the state and local levels. they may get some help from fed funds but as i see in PA and NJ most beneficial programs are state sponsored.
-the only bloc dependent on government is big business, has been and always will be, the pope can become president and this wouldn't change.
Just one question - what is 4 years of blaming Bush if not scapegoating?
OK, I'll break it down for you.
"scapegoating" is when you fictionally blame someone for something they didn't to. Or you blame them for something you set them up to take the blame FOR.
If you were in a coma in 2008, I'll give you a short history lesson. George W Bush gave the top earners "tax cuts" as a present for the economic growth and prosperity brought in by the Clinton years. He said it was because they were "job creators," even though those jobs weren't created until Bill Clinton raised those taxes to the level they were at.
George W Bush then lied to the American people and the Senate and House about "weapons of mass destruction" and the "axis of evil" and tricked them into an un-winnable war with Iraq, started a necessary but poorly-executed and astronomically expensive war with Afghanistan and then rewarded his Vice President's old company with "no-bid" contracts that paid out absurd amounts of money and hired mercenaries to do the dirty work of exterminating civilians (so they could blame the atrocities on them and not the military).
Adding to that, he passed a prescription drugs bill he had no way to pay for, spent money on all sorts of money wasting bullshit and when he left office in January of 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH and the US economy was so close to total collapse that we literally could have been the next Somalia. And I'm not really exaggerating there.
The catastrophic clusterfuck in which we found ourselves was deeper than any time since the 1930s. And because of many factors that didn't exist at the time... the result could have been MUCH worse than the Great Depression. Much worse.
The problem wasn't an easy fix. It was systematic down to the core of the banking industry, the housing industry and even the corrupt corporations that scammed the people out of trillions of dollars. Those have to be gutted and rebuilt.
That black hole would have taken years to climb out of no matter WHO was sitting in the oval office. And as luck would have it, we didn't have someone who was owned by the banks or the oil corporations or the Koch brothers... so he slowly started to rebuild our system. It's working but it's going to take a VERY long time to fix. You don't get that fucked up over night and you don't fix that problem with a couple tax cuts, closing a few women's reproductive clinics and shutting down PBS.
Republicans fought him tooth and nail every inch. They are owned by those billionaires who weren't ready to stop fucking the American public and they did all they could to stop him. They refused to let those tax cuts expire, they called his overhaul of health insurance "socialism" and spread fear about "death panels" and concentration camps that FEMA wasn't building.
They demonized gay community and convinced unemployed people that they should vote for a party that would cut off their unemployment insurance payments or else the gays would be able to get married. They called college students asking for birth control "sluts."
So... I'll sum up in point form.
1) The economic disaster is the fault of the Republican Party. It pre-dates the presidency of Barack Obama.
2) If you voted for George W Bush, this is also YOUR fault. You must own it. I didn't pee in your pants, either. That's all on you.
3) How about you shut your pie hole and let president Obama continue to clean up the mess you made before you whine about how those mean old gays and immigrants and women who didn't want to give birth to their rapist's babies are being mean to you.
Comments
It is definitely harder for some folks. That student sounds like an amazing person. Glad those things were there for him/her.
As for the latter point about Obamacare - the issue with the pre-ex coverage is that it either won't be sufficient coverage (which the law tries to address), or more likely won't be affordable and those folks will be back in the same situation they are today, only with the added expense of paying the tax. The law does nothing to force people to take coverage when it is against their perceived benefit and more importantly does nothing to make health care itself more affordable. All it does is make insurance available to these folks. It doesn't really make it affordable. Unless they qualified for the broadened Medicaid provisions (which in NY, for example, really doesn't add that many folks), they will more likely be better off paying the tax and falling back on indigent care or whatever it does to pay the bills today. The law is mislabled.
He actually whined about how 47% of the country who won't vote for him wouldn't vote for him BECAUSE "they think they're entitled to food."
To which I said "and just for that, you plutocratic, stuck up, obnoxious, blue-blood pig, I will do whatever I can to keep you from being elected."
Because there were many reasons to not vote for him, none of which were "I think the government should give me food."
Look... you know what... you people have been on this for four years with your phony indignation and trying to blame President Obama for your own inept President Bush who ruined the country and destroyed our way of life for a generation.
You clearly didn't get the memo that Republicans just got their asses handed to them and that the word from the top down is "tea 'tards are hereby banished from the party," but they were. Because it's this same line that you're giving us now that turned the majority of the country against you.
So pop your head out, take a deep breath and realize that you're just making a fool of yourself.
Poorly.
And I'm the one on the talking points.
Actually... it's Republicans who want that.
They whine about how much money they pay in taxes and how the federal government is their enemy. They cry about how they should defund FEMA and throw fits about national health care.
And then hurricane Katrina takes out the bible belt (as a punishment for all the gay people there, according to Fox News) and they all stand around the cry about how FEMA didn't get there fast enough and how come there aren't more mobile hospitals for all the people.
They refuse to pay taxes because they're "taxed enough already" but when a road gets washed out, the power goes out or their house catches on fire... well BOY they sure get angry that nobody will get there FAST and fix it.
You're like Veruca Salt. Time to go away with the rest of the bad eggs.
I can give you my personal view on this. I am a married woman, also a (very) hard-working professional in a well paying job. My taxes will likely go up under Obama. I don't like it, but it won't really hurt me. I will never vote Republican while the party panders to the right-wing religious conservatives, with prominent republicans like Akin, Mourdock, Joe Walsh etc. making outrageous misogynistic statements and considering the rights of a fertilized egg to be more important than those of a fully grown woman. Romney by putting Ryan (co-sponsor of personhood legislation) on the ticket gave his implicit approval of extreme anti-choice views. I think this hurt him greatly with women independents, and I sincerely hope that the Republicans get the message, since I do agree with some of their fiscal conservative views. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I can't support Romney so I voted for Gary Johson this year.
And, by the way, I am one off those who voted anti-Palin in 2008. That ditz being one heartbeat away from the presidency (very scary with Mccain's age) was too scary to contemplate.
You use to be witty, what happened?
You calling me a bad egg is pretty damn funny.
I understand that you are arguing to argue and that maybe that is your schtick, but people who consider both the top and bottom of a ticket aren't foolish, kookish, uninformed, or wasting their vote.
Here. Just for you.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am25.html
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Sure, minorities have taken over the country. No white people voted for Obama, other than some self-satisfied mega-rich celebrities, right?
And there was I thinking that we'd maybe see less bullshit here on the AMT now that the election circus is over.
Oh well.
You need to stop telling me what I should and shouldn't do. You can also drop all the snide comments. It got old a long time ago.
As for the fantasy you're pushing: that people voted for Obama so that they could sit on their asses and let the 1% take care of them...that's all it is; a fantasy. Nothing to do with reality.
Your guy lost the election. Maybe you should be looking at yourself and at your own candidate's failings, instead of deluding yourself about the whys and wherefore's of Obama's victory.
...with a helping hand, in the form of the Third World debt crisis in mid-1982, which the Reagan administration pounced on like vultures, as it enabled them to squeeze the Third World dry and fill their coffers.
Oh I'm sorry.
Am I spiking the ball too loudly?
Well that's just rude, isn't it?
And after four years of having to listen to people shouting about "your socialist emperor" and "the messiah" and "1 and done" and about 4 threads even here congratulating Mitt Romney for winning... After countless people attacking liberals and saying we're lazy (I work a full time job and own a production company in my spare time) and saying we feel we're "entitled to food," I think we've earned a few dances in the end zone.
And... as a member of the gay community that - for the first time EVER - finally beat NOM at their hate campaign against us, I get to do one last little one...
folks that start out ahead rarely go downward, while people that start out in the lower and poor class rarely go up. there are a lot more people moving up from middle to upper class than poor to middle, and the wealthy never ever go down. that is a generational thing. they all live off of the money made by those that came before them. just like mitt romney.
obama does not make people dependant on government. can you explain how he supposedly does that?
did you know that there is a lifetime time limit that one can be on welfare and food stamps?? thank bill clinton for that one. but he won't get credit for that one either i guess..... :roll:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you addressed one point, the dying of starvation, which is exactly what you are gonna get if people like ryan and romney get in there and start cutting food stamps and welfare.
the other thing you addressed was my own opinion that god bless america is worn out at baseball games. with american players being nearly a minority in major league baseball, seems kind of insulting to the rest of the non-american players.
what about numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, the main point of number 9 and not the aside, and number 10???
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and yes, obama would help with more of them than romney would have.
what is wrong with multiple life jackets? the vast majority of americans are not going to need more than one. and even if some need more than one, what is wrong with investing in people so that they can help themselves???
did you know that most states pay up to 60 percent of college costs? at least they did when i went. now missouri pays something like 38% and passes the rest onto the student. universities are pricing themselves out of many peoples' price ranges. thus taking opportunities away from the less fortunate.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah, thought you'd like that.
Well fortunately the students I mentioned already have good health insurance through their parents, so for them the most important thing is to be able to stay on that insurance during their treatments and not being rejected for pre-existing condition. I know there are a lot of flaws with Obamacare, but it was a step.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
See... when you say something THAT clueless... that obnoxious... Saying that "the people who don't plan to vote for me are all a bunch of lazy moochers who want everything for free" is just the kind of thing I'd expect from a snobby rich brat who never had to work a day in his life.
And the news stories that he was reeling and shell shocked that he lost... love it.
The news stories that he hadn't prepared a concession speech and had to go with one written "just in case'" by an aide... priceless.
That he'd spent $25,000 on a fireworks show that never got fired... brilliant.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Or, you were being ironic? Very well then.
What's that you say? You were being serious? Oh. Ok. We don't see liberals doing any of that. Good point. You win, Gimme. I'll just page through the threads here on AMT. Yep. Right. None of that going on.
Just one question - what is 4 years of blaming Bush if not scapegoating? Oh!! That's right. You see the truth and nobody on the other side does. Again. Solid point.
Hey - first of all my miss america comment was not a cut down, just what popped into my head after I read your list. I think my style plays much better in person at the bar over a beer than over the internet, so sorry if I offended.
There is nothing wrong with multiple life jackets, but there has to be a limit. There has to be a point where enough is enough. In reality except on a few issues, I think most people are pretty close together on what they want and even on some of how to get there. Just like at a manufacturing plant in HR or as a school teacher, we seem to spend 90% of our time discussing the 10%...the problem 10%. I think part of the problem is we throw around terms such as "lazy", etc and people think we are talking about the entire 47%. That's not the case. I also don;t think you could apply the "less fortunate" to the entire population either. For some, they make the bed they lie in.
You know, I actually like Obama in many ways. I just got really turned off when, in my opinion, he made this an "Us vs. them" situation. I voted for him in 2008 to try and change that, and in my eyes, instead of changing it he escalated it (and I know that the republican leadership in the house played a huge role too). Then, he ran a campaign based upon, again, in my opinion, based upon taking more $ from tax payers with very little talk about spending cuts. He mentions his 2.5 to 1 ratio, but to be honest, I don;t believe him. My opinion is you must make the spending cuts, prove you are trust worthy, then I would be ok with increased tax revenue. Although, again, I disagree with his method of tax revenue growth as I would much prefer a complete overhaul of the tax code rather than just continuing to put lipstick on that pig.
There is without a doubt in my mind a segment of the population that believes the government owes them. Owes them food, shelter, etc. So I certainly think that population exists. And I do think it is very easy to get other people to vote for you if you are promising them different benefits with the idea that someone else will pay higher taxes to pay the bill. That's a no brainer. So that is a dangerous path in my mind.
That said, while pissed off that a guy running on a platform to raise taxes and more importantly a guy that in my mind broke the promise of bipartisanship that was important to me won the election (again, I wouldn't have voted for any of repub congressional leaders either), I am glad for a few reasons. I hope the issue of gay marriage will go away faster...because it is excepted. I hope that medical coverage is better for everyone without an extreme cost increase. While you and many disagree, I have respected his command of the military in regards to drones, etc, though more than I would like to see but I don;t have all the information he does. I'm concerned about taxes and blatant overspending (and yes GW did this when he didn;t have to). I'm concerned about the economy and businesses and the "China problem". I think someone else would have handled all of those better. Anyhow, end of rant that no one will read because it's too long.
Oh, and this type of rhetoric comes straight from the party handbook...and is part of the problem. We all do it from time to time, usually after frustration sets in. But what you said is quite a generalization, and just wrong for most.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
-the best social programs are initiated at the state and local levels. they may get some help from fed funds but as i see in PA and NJ most beneficial programs are state sponsored.
-the only bloc dependent on government is big business, has been and always will be, the pope can become president and this wouldn't change.
OK, I'll break it down for you.
"scapegoating" is when you fictionally blame someone for something they didn't to. Or you blame them for something you set them up to take the blame FOR.
If you were in a coma in 2008, I'll give you a short history lesson. George W Bush gave the top earners "tax cuts" as a present for the economic growth and prosperity brought in by the Clinton years. He said it was because they were "job creators," even though those jobs weren't created until Bill Clinton raised those taxes to the level they were at.
George W Bush then lied to the American people and the Senate and House about "weapons of mass destruction" and the "axis of evil" and tricked them into an un-winnable war with Iraq, started a necessary but poorly-executed and astronomically expensive war with Afghanistan and then rewarded his Vice President's old company with "no-bid" contracts that paid out absurd amounts of money and hired mercenaries to do the dirty work of exterminating civilians (so they could blame the atrocities on them and not the military).
Adding to that, he passed a prescription drugs bill he had no way to pay for, spent money on all sorts of money wasting bullshit and when he left office in January of 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH and the US economy was so close to total collapse that we literally could have been the next Somalia. And I'm not really exaggerating there.
The catastrophic clusterfuck in which we found ourselves was deeper than any time since the 1930s. And because of many factors that didn't exist at the time... the result could have been MUCH worse than the Great Depression. Much worse.
The problem wasn't an easy fix. It was systematic down to the core of the banking industry, the housing industry and even the corrupt corporations that scammed the people out of trillions of dollars. Those have to be gutted and rebuilt.
That black hole would have taken years to climb out of no matter WHO was sitting in the oval office. And as luck would have it, we didn't have someone who was owned by the banks or the oil corporations or the Koch brothers... so he slowly started to rebuild our system. It's working but it's going to take a VERY long time to fix. You don't get that fucked up over night and you don't fix that problem with a couple tax cuts, closing a few women's reproductive clinics and shutting down PBS.
Republicans fought him tooth and nail every inch. They are owned by those billionaires who weren't ready to stop fucking the American public and they did all they could to stop him. They refused to let those tax cuts expire, they called his overhaul of health insurance "socialism" and spread fear about "death panels" and concentration camps that FEMA wasn't building.
They demonized gay community and convinced unemployed people that they should vote for a party that would cut off their unemployment insurance payments or else the gays would be able to get married. They called college students asking for birth control "sluts."
So... I'll sum up in point form.
1) The economic disaster is the fault of the Republican Party. It pre-dates the presidency of Barack Obama.
2) If you voted for George W Bush, this is also YOUR fault. You must own it. I didn't pee in your pants, either. That's all on you.
3) How about you shut your pie hole and let president Obama continue to clean up the mess you made before you whine about how those mean old gays and immigrants and women who didn't want to give birth to their rapist's babies are being mean to you.