USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Hans Ludwig 0]

five chars

I said cite your source, not give us an uneducated opinion or talking points on the subject.

Technically, the government really is entitled to a certain percantage of your money. This is what taxes are. Since the US is a democracy you have a say in what they do with it.

Wait, what? Show me where in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation that states the Government is meant to be "big" and take your money?

Just because someone doesn't have the ability to pay for a bare-minimums lifestyle doesn't mean they are lazy.

Indians and Asians don't seem to have a hard time living the American dream. Asians now beat Caucasians in making the most in the private sector (cited from a DOL study done just recently). Guess what? Many Americans aren't getting certified or advanced degrees. Because of this, there are many jobs, high paying jobs, that either never get filled or outsourced (from the mouth of Jack Welch, form GE ceo). Or they get filled by someone that isn't the best person for the position.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[jakerod 254]

Would you mind citing your source on this information of yours?

Would you like to cite your source opposing it?

You are not entitled to my money, which I worked hard for. If you want to be lazy and have a society pay for you to keep up your lazy life style, then move to Europe.

I'm not entitled to your money you're right. But once you pay it in taxes it becomes the government's money, which I am entitled to to some degree. Just like you're entitled to the money that I pay in my taxes to the government. See how that works? Its a big pool. Our taxes all go into one big fund from which we all benefit. For example, roads, police, firefighters, military, etc.

Or you can build a time machine and live in 1960s Russia.

If I could build a time machine why wouldn't I go into the future when everyone who agrees with you realizes that they are wrong? After all, backwards time travel isn't possible... and if it is, it would be far too dangerous to go back and risk screwing everything up.

What happens to lazy animals in nature? They starve to death or learn to adapt to their surroundings pretty fast in order to survive and mate.

Assuming that these people are "lazy" they seem to be adapting quite well because they are still alive.... and many probably mating.

[Big Mac 19]

Would you mind citing your source on this information of yours?

You are not entitled to my money, which I worked hard for. If you want to be lazy and have a society pay for you to keep up your lazy life style, then move to Europe. Or you can build a time machine and live in 1960s Russia.

What happens to lazy animals in nature? They starve to death or learn to adapt to their surroundings pretty fast in order to survive and mate.

Would mind citing your sources that give credit to all these people being lazy? I can introduce you to at minimum 50 people I know that are not lazy and who benefit from these programs.

Also Reagan did leave office with huge debt brought about by rearming for a war that never happened as well as supporting anti-communist guerrillas who were no better than the communists they were fighting. So in reality he was a shitty president.

One last thing, These are people we're talking about, not animals. Some of them are veterans, many of them have families. Republicans rant and rave about how we have people here that need to be taken care of and we should cut foreign aid, but won't lift a finger or give a dollar to help. These people are more entitled to break than you are.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Would mind citing your sources that give credit to all these people being lazy? I can introduce you to at minimum 50 people I know that are not lazy and who benefit from these programs.

Also Reagan did leave office with huge debt brought about by rearming for a war that never happened as well as supporting anti-communist guerrillas who were no better than the communists they were fighting. So in reality he was a shitty president.

One last thing, These are people we're talking about, not animals. Some of them are veterans, many of them have families. Republicans rant and rave about how we have people here that need to be taken care of and we should cut foreign aid, but won't lift a finger or give a dollar to help. These people are more entitled to break than you are.

I'm still waiting for your to cite your source. But as usual, some people like you that frequent forums make up stuff and then make up execuse why they can't cite their source: I don't have to; I can't find it; I found it on Wikipedia.

Just a reminder:

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post

You do realize that most people who benefit from these programs are people who are actually trying to make it, but because of the lack of decent paying jobs in their community they're having to ask the government to help them out (i.e. Food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) Calling them lazy is stereotyping the people who benefit from these programs.

Is that from a college/university, non-profit, GAO, DOL study?

How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden

http://mises.org/daily/2190

Political Paternalism, Big Government, and the Welfare State

LINK

The Paternalistic and Plundering Welfare State

LINK

The Welfare State's Death Spiral

WASHINGTON -- What we're seeing in Greece is the death spiral of the welfare state. This isn't Greece's problem alone, and that's why its crisis has rattled global stock markets and threatens economic recovery. Virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect. Aging populations have been promised huge health and retirement benefits, which countries haven't fully covered with taxes. The reckoning has arrived in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy societies.

LINK

Testimony of Michael Tanner

Director

Health and Welfare Studies

Cato Institute

Crime. The Maryland NAACP recently concluded that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."

Illegitimacy. In 1960 only 5.3 percent of births were out of wedlock. Today nearly 30 percent of births are illegitimate. Among blacks, the illegitimacy rate is nearly two-thirds. Among whites, it tops 22 percent. There is strong evidence that links the availability of welfare with the increase in out-of-wedlock births.

Dependence. While the average stay on welfare remains relatively short, nearly 65 percent of the people on welfare at any given time will be on the program for eight years or longer. Moreover, welfare is increasingly intergenerational. Children raised in families on welfare are seven times more likely to become dependent on welfare than are other children. Professors Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway of the University of Ohio, found that, if you compare two individuals with incomes below the poverty level, an individual who does not receive welfare is two and a half times more likely to be out of poverty the next year than an individual who receives welfare.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html

However, I'm sure you wont actually read what I posted or even click the links I supplied. But it shows I back up my text with citations and not talking points or made up facts.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[jakerod 254]

Congrats you posted an article written by some guy who appears to be biased towards your own view (judging by the banner "In Defense of Capitalism") and also has no citations within it to tell me where he got any of his information. Great Source!

Edited May 25, 2010 by Jakerod

[Big Mac 19]

I'm still waiting for your to cite your source. But as usual, some people like you that frequent forums make up stuff and then make up execuse why they can't cite their source: I don't have to; I can't find it; I found it on Wikipedia.

Just a reminder:

Is that from a college/university, non-profit, GAO, DOL study?

Well you have yet to cite a source that gives credit to these people being lazy. If you actually worked work people like this like I have (I used to drive a meals on wheels truck when I was in high school.) you'd know that what I'm saying is true. Now I'm not saying that there are some people who'd rather leech off the government. I've met many of them, but the vast majority are decent people who eventually want to make enough so where they don't have to rely on these programs. Sadly it doesn't always work out like that, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

I personally believe you have nothing to back up your claims, and you're just spouting what you heard off the Fox Comedy News Channel. It's quite sad really that you are so blind to plight of your fellow Americans and refuse to help. Thankfully you have little say in the matter other than voting for someone who thinks like you do, but even then you still don't have much of a choice, but to deal with the reality that these programs will never go away.

However, I'm sure you wont actually read what I posted or even click the links I supplied.

Actually I did and I found it interesting that you posted three links and those 3 links are not sources but just a blog of someone's rants, which while it was very well written and very well thought out does not count as a source. Your last link is 15 years old, which when I was in college when your wrote a paper on current issues you had to use sources that were at least 5 years old unless you were citing historic facts. The only semi-decent source you have is your Washington Post article, but from someone like you I expect you to come out with a professor's thesis.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Well you have yet to cite a source that gives credit to these people being lazy.

I did. It's up to you to read. No, I'm not going to hold your hand either. Well, I sort of did hold your hand because I added a few synopsis of the content of some of the links.

I'm just curious, did you go to college? And if so, what did you get your degree in?

Edited May 25, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[jakerod 254]

Actually I did and I found it interesting that you posted three links that have nothing to do with the USA and those 3 links are not sources but just a blog of someone's rants, which while it was very well written and very well thought out does not count as a source. Your last link is 15 years old, which when I was in college when your wrote a paper on current issues you had to use sources that were at least 5 years old unless you were citing historic facts. The only semi-decent source you have is your Washington Post article, but from someone like you I expect you to come out with a professor's thesis.

I did. It's up to you to read. No, I'm not going to hold your hand either. Well, I sort of did hold your hand because I added a few synopsis of the content of some of the links.

I'm just curious, did you go to college? And if so, what did you get your degree in?

I bolded some stuff to help you out there Hans. Also, i'm curious, did you go to college, what did you get your degree in, and what type of job do you have?

Me: Associate's Degree, (working on) Bachelor's Degree Psychology, Sociology(minor). Most likely getting a Master's too... or another Bachelor's depends on how I feel.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Jakerod

[Big Mac 19]

I did. It's up to you to read. No, I'm not going to hold your hand either. Well, I sort of did hold your hand because I added a few synopsis of the content of some of the links.

I'm just curious, did you go to college? And if so, what did you get your degree in?

Yes I went to college. I got an associates degree in criminal justice.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Yes I went to college. I got an associates degree in criminal justice.

So that qualifies you to not post citations or refute the links I gave you, which were all from think tanks?

1. Communication with a strong point in Public Relations with a minor in Marketing. University of Texas

2. Masters in Political Science University of Texas

3. Masters in Public Administration (WIP) University of Houston

Congrats you posted an article written by some guy who appears to be biased towards your own view (judging by the banner "In Defense of Capitalism") and also has no citations within it to tell me where he got any of his information. Great Source!

Well then contact the author and ask him for his citations.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[jakerod 254]

So that qualifies you to not post citations or refute the links I gave you, which were all from think tanks?

Think Tanks which commonly acquire their funding from advocacy groups or businesses. That makes me think they might be biased. Not to mention just because its a Think Tank doesn't mean they don't need research to back up their claims.

[Big Mac 19]

So that qualifies you to not post citations or refute the links I gave you, which were all from think tanks?

1. Communication with a strong point in Public Relations with a minor in Marketing.

2. Masters in Political Science

3. Masters in Public Administration (WIP)

Pretty much when they're invalid sources. As for me citing sources, I'm not going to dig up my old college papers just to give you sources on a forum that's meant for gaming and not politics. I'll leave it up to Jakerod to cite the sources and me to tell you how it is from someone who's been through what these people have gone through are still going through.

That's how Journalist write. You often times have to contact them to see if they will supply their sources, which they usually do.

As I've already said. That make's it an invalid source. My professors were very picky about sources and they would have flipped their lids if I used a newspaper article as a source of reference.

I'm off for the night. This has been a very interesting debate and I've enjoyed it very much. I'm glad we could have it without the need for insults. If only the rest of the world could be like this we might actually solve some major problems.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Scrub 0]

First, the federal government is NOT 'entitled' to a portion of my money, they operate at the PRIVILEGE We the People grant them - When it is no longer to the benefit of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and replace it with something more suitable. Second, we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. Significant difference.

I suggest you all read starting with the Federalist papers all the way through to the AZ immigration law (Dec, of Ind, Constitution.. The Az thing was a try at humor).. Should take you all of 2.5 hours. Unlike the healthcare bill (1.5 weeks for me). Sounds like several here are going off on opinion more than fact.

If this nation were founded by people who think about government as progressives do today... We'd still be England.

This nation Was, Is, and Will Be about individual strengths, weaknesses, triumphs, failures, kindness, or selfishness. When it is run with nothing more than guardrails to keep people from flying off the edges of our great civilization, it is self-cleaning, inspiring, compassionate... Can be rough until that self-cleaning part comes around. Don't get me wrong, there is great strength in doing things together, right up to the point when another person tells you - you can't do something that is constitutional. There's the limit.

Instead of reading what ivory tower members THINK of the current political methodologies, read history. Read of the founding of the U.S. (in the words of those who did it, not more 'interpretations' of eggheads). Read current events around the world: Big government is a burden to those who strive to excel, in the short term a help to those in trouble (or wanting a free ride), but ultimately a shackle in the long term. Holding all in the grayness of mediocrity, and loss of individual capacity to achieve, and hence stifling the will. No, give me the opportunity to succeed and fail on my own (done both), give me my resources to help those who need it, and stay the hell away from my Constitution! (where all of this nonsense is heading)

Edited May 25, 2010 by Scrub

[Big Mac 19]

First, the federal government is NOT 'entitled' to a portion of my money, they operate at the PRIVILEGE We the People grant them - When it is no longer to the benefit of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and replace it with something more suitable. Second, we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. Significant difference.

I suggest you all read starting with the Federalist papers all the way through to the AZ immigration law (Dec, of Ind, Constitution.. The Az thing was a try at humor).. Should take you all of 2.5 hours. Unlike the healthcare bill (1.5 weeks for me). Sounds like several here are going off on opinion more than fact.

If this nation were founded by people who think about government as progressives do today... We'd still be England.

This nation Was, Is, and Will Be about individual strengths, weaknesses, triumphs, failures, kindness, or selfishness. When it is run with nothing more than guardrails to keep people from flying off the edges of our great civilization, it is self-cleaning, inspiring, compassionate... Can be rough until that self-cleaning part comes around. Don't get me wrong, there is great strength in doing things together, right up to the point when another person tells you - you can't do something. There's the limit

Instead of reading what ivory tower members THINK of the current political methodologies, read history. Read of the founding of the U.S. (in the words of those who did it, not more 'interpretations' of eggheads). Read current events around the world: Big government is a burden to those who strive to excel, in the short term a help to those in trouble (or wanting a free ride), but ultimately a shackle in the long term. Holding all in the grayness of mediocrity, and loss of individual capacity to achieve, and hence stifling the will. No, give me the opportunity to succeed and fail on my own (done both), give me my resources to help those who need it, and stay the hell away from my Constitution! (where all of this nonsense is heading)

I'm not even going to try to debate with you, because as where Hans put forth a cold, but yet reasonable argument, you just spout off the rhetoric of extreme right-wing militia groups. I've lived around people who've said the EXACT same things you have just said and they were neither smart nor cared about America. They only wanted to impose their radical beliefs on everyone else. If you want to have a serious debate that's fine, but don't come at me and everyone here with the views of groups that are classified in the US at the very least Hate Groups and at worst domestic terrorists.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Scrub 0]

Aww, Big Mac, that was only my firework filled entrance to this thread :P (not a militia member, nor a MSNBC watcher either)

The point of my drivel above is we have a pendulum that has been swinging ever more aggressively, Right then Left as the politicians play their games in D.C. On the Right, we have extremists that want only (certain) industries to be strong, and the people without much recourse. On the Left we have Governmental Redistribution, and not much representation, leaving the people without recourse.

Need to stop the game all together. And if you actually went to a Tea-Party, you'd see this is why both the Republicans as well as the Democrats are a bit unsettled by them.

Hahah, Hate groups? Classified by whom? lol terrorists? You mean like Weather Underground? They blew stuff up in the 60's, right? I'm now classified with them? wow, that means I might be able to get into a juicy W.H. advisory post like Andy Stern (Mr. SDS)? cool. (you weren't spouting rhetoric there, were you?)

One last thing. Honestly. Read your history in the words of those who lived it. I just did this year, and am re-reading for all the things that are still not solid in my mind. Take the emotive phrasing out of what I posted, and look at the content. It's not radical, unless you call the founders of your country dangerous radicals as well. (Do you? Truly want to know.)

Edited May 25, 2010 by Scrub

[Big Mac 19]

And if you actually went to a Tea-Party, you'd see this is why both the Republicans as well as the Democrats are a bit unsettled by them.

I have and I laughed my ass off. I never seen such a dense concentration of idiots in my entire life. It was kinda funny because I saw two F-16s flying over on their daily exercises and I thought to myself "They could use some target practice." but then came to my senses and realized no matter how idiotic, uneducated, and inbred the people who attend Tea Party rallies are, they have their right to be jack asses in public...as long as they have a permit.

Aww, Big Mac, that was only my firework filled entrance to this thread :P (not a militia member, nor a MSNBC watcher either)

You could have fooled me. I figured you to be Keith Olbermann's number 1 fan. I actually like to watch him. I don't care too much for MSNBC, but Countdown is a funny show. Kinda like Glenn Beck, but without the crying and looney "they're coming for you" rants.

Hahah, Hate groups? Classified by whom? lol terrorists? You mean like Weather Underground? They blew stuff up in the 60's, right?

By the DoJ. Also if you ever bothered to read about the weather underground you'd know they never actually killed anyone. That's not to say they didn't try. Still though Bill Ayers is an idiot so I'm thinking their zero kill count had to do with the fact that when they committed their terrorist acts they were hopped up on that good Canadian weed.

unless you call the founders of your country dangerous radicals as well.

The Sons of Liberty were by today's standards a terrorist group, but as the old saying goes "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." So if you consider the Sons of Liberty to be the founders of America then yea I consider the founders to be terrorists.

Seriously though, this is not the USA of the 1790s and a lot of what's in the constitution is out-dated. I personally believe that the great minds from all over this country need to get together with the politicians (from both parties.) to have a revised version that fits the America of today. Kinda like the Council of Nicaea was for the Bible.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Scrub 0]

Seriously though, this is not the USA of the 1790s and a lot of what's in the constitution is out-dated. I personally believe that the great minds from all over this country need to get together with the politicians (from both parties.) to have a revised version that fits the America of today. Kinda like the Council of Nicaea was for the Bible.

Thank you for that honesty. Not to be an arse, but that type of thought is the hallmark of a Progressive/Revisionist/Socialist. Did you read your founders words? They were visionaries, speaking about this time and challenge from within our own country, positioning their intent of the Constitution with the numerous letters they wrote.

So not to be entirely condemning, please tell me as clearly as you can, at least a few of the articles and bills in the Constitution you think are outdated?

I'm not going to bore you (unless you want me to) because you know what I'm going to say, I'm one of those types who sees the freedoms We have, and sees the encroachment and theft of said freedoms. Please help me to see that this is not so. That you have something else in mind. Facts, not rhetoric as you asked for please.

Edit: re-answering your points above (damn logout timelimit):

About the Tea-Party:

You have no concrete points to debate, a lot of opinion (not that it is bad, but no substance as to WHY), and surprisingly a lot of violent, hateful thought. What were you accusing ME of again? Is freedom a bad thing? Honesty? Integrity? And not putting up with pols that lie or put special interests before the people? That is what the Party is about. I saw them grill and I mean HARD, both Palin and the sheriff ( can't remember his name Edit: remembered - Mike Bouchard) that is going for the Gov position in Lansing, about not backing down on their word, how they will do it, why they will. The sheriff faltered for an instant on a question and was immediately challenged on his integrity and purpose. good stuff. What exactly do you not like so much

About Keith: Sarcasm? You call me an extremist-righty then think uber-lefty Keith is my #1? Not following if not sarcasm.

About the DOJ: It was a failed attempt to pre-empt political backlash, Janet even had to apologize for the outrageous assesment.

This “intelligence†report admits that it contains no concrete evidence. It states:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

We have had:

On the Left: (gloriously plagerized.. umm copied info)

# It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter's speech to be cancelled this week.

# It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.

# It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.

# Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.

# It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.

# It's liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.

# It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.

# It's doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.

# In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.

# Don't forget it was Obama's friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.

# It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.

# It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.

# It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.

# It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.

# The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.

# Every time the G20 gets together, it's not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.

Not to mention the riots in AZ for doing what the Fed.Gov. -by existing law-should be doing.

On the right: (including Tea-parties, NRA, and others)

Numerous gatherings, family outings, armed (even white and black men armed with AR-15's) protests, and rallies... No-one hurt or threatened. Where is this danger? If I missed something, please fill it in, I could not find anything but Mcveigh (crazy MF is in the right 'correctional facility' NOW). Hell the Tea-party has lefties throwing rocks, re-directing their tour routes, blocking logistics.. What has the right done? Like to see that list.

And please don't even bring up KKK, skin heads.. Those whack-jobs are not even on the chart between Left-Right. Above and below if you watched Beck. I tend to agree to the analogy as I see groups that hate all along the path, even right in the middle.

I agree it is good to debate in a cool factual environment. It's been enlightening, and hope to understand you better in the future. If my questions come off as aloof or snarky, it's not intended. I'm trying to find humor in this dark political fog. Please see them as serious desires to hear your details.

Okay one intentionally snarky thing because your error, caused by unfocused angst, bugged me: (If you read what I wrote) I never wrote that W.U killed people. I wrote they "blew things up". (and THEN got into the White House) :p I DID read about them, and Alynski, and Wilson, and Marx, and Mao. (Though I will not put The book of five rings, The I-ching, or Sun-Tzu in this list, they are excellent guides for battle)

Have a good night.

v HyperU2v : That's sad and frightening in so many ways.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Scrub

[HyperU2 11]

Send this lady some cash. You owe her.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/21/homeless-mother-15-says-she-needs-help-justice/news-breaking/

"What do I do?" she said earlier in the day. "I have no answers. My family has been railroaded. Someone needs to pay."

[Pease 10]

Scrub from what I am reading here, Big Mac would of categorized as a Tory or a British Nationalist in case you didn't know what that was Big Mac, that doesn't appreciate not having someone look over his shoulder....he's probably one of those guys who Facebook who puts everything out there for the world to see, and when he reads something about Facebook Privacy he gets all up in arms about someone invading his privacy.

I don't take people like him serious....

@ Hyper.... that b***h isn't getting any of my money.

[Big Mac 19]

Send this lady some cash. You owe her.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/21/homeless-mother-15-says-she-needs-help-justice/news-breaking/

"What do I do?" she said earlier in the day. "I have no answers. My family has been railroaded. Someone needs to pay."

Talk about racist....

he's probably one of those guys who Facebook who puts everything out there for the world to see, and when he reads something about Facebook Privacy he gets all up in arms about someone invading his privacy.

That is totally off topic and show's you have nothing meaningful to bring to this debate.

I don't take people like him serious..

I don't take people that can't debate about something without resorting to baseless assumptions about someone because they have nothing to add to the debate seriously.

Scrub from what I am reading here, Big Mac would of categorized as a Tory or a British Nationalist in case you didn't know what that was Big Mac, that doesn't appreciate not having someone look over his shoulder

Considering I'm an American and my views are more along the lines of the left and not the right that would not make me a Tory... Homework is key. Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Pease 10]

No, but the first part did. I am just calling you a hypocrite.

Also how was Hyper's racist? Just curious? I read that and I wanted to throw her ass in jail for what she's doing...guess that makes me a racist as well...why don't you just open up your check book their guy and send her all of your money...You do owe her...according to her.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Pease
Added some stuff that again has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

[Big Mac 19]

No, but the first part did. I am just calling you a hypocrite.

I'm a hypocrite? I'm not one of these people who want better bridges, smooth roads, a stronger military, etc. but then when it comes time to pay the bill they don't want to front the cash.

I bet just like everyone else you cashed in on your stimulus check. Don't lie a free $300-$600 check depending your income,that's a XboX360 at the very least, but also like a lot of other right wingers you railed against it too I bet, but when the money came in I bet you didn't rip up that check. That's a hypocrite.

Also how was Hyper's racist? Just curious?

The simple fact that when it comes down to uses people as examples right wingers never talk about the white trash. It's always poor blacks (In her case though I agree with you.) Mexicans,and what not. Edited May 25, 2010 by Big Mac

[Takko 10]

That woman is not deserving and lamententing and burnnoticing.

Yes, we should share the views of left wing conspiracists, while right wing people

are jealousy eating cake in their own backyard.

Its no coincidence that people like Scrub are not able to be something else

than being a scrub without being molesting to everbodys views.

Big Mac is right.

[Placebo 29]

The simple fact that when it comes down to uses people as examples right wingers never talk about the white trash. It's always poor blacks (In her case though I agree with you.) Mexicans,and what not.

Then bring up some white trash as comparison.

I see no racism in the original post.

[Scrub 0]

Yeaaaah.... Big mac is playing by Alynski's rules (whether he knows it or not):

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

All I heard was hot air, and ridicule of where others stand. Where do you stand? On smoke, opinion.. Nothing solid. That is what is eating away at the foundation of our great country.

Big Mac: I responded directly to your hyperbole and hot vitriolic vapour, gave you my stance and info. Truth, clarity. What did I get from you? Nothing but evasion. Next rule:

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?â€

So, you going to be a man of stature and stand on your issue? Or are you simply going to keep poking at everybody else.

------

Almost forgot your first shot across my bow:

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

You went abstract with the failed threat of inclusion to the 'terrorist groups"

C'mon stand! Say something about your views - I could care less about what you do NOT want. What DO you want? Without your shown hostility that you accuse others of, please.

Oh, and lets take the 'oh too easy' race card out of the picture, and keep the issue:

"A woman with 15 kids demands someone pay for her mess, that she created."

Haha! I think just got what Placebo said. Did you play the 'victim' card as well as the 'race' card and report Hypers post? lol! Was it again with the no-fact-thuggery of the Progressives? (I'm just stating that if the Political Federal Express came to pack us all up, you'd go nicely in that labeled box).

Post something of inherent value. A positive point that means something, when it's just sitting there.

Takko: My stance was here from the very beginning of this country, unless you want to re-write history a bit more, I humbly state that it is people of YOUR Constitutionalist-contrarian viewpoint that is the one molesting. Care to find a way to prove that statement wrong?

Ok, please take this with a sense of humor, as it will probably only work on this forum - but it illustrates my current image of you two (and Mr. Obama): "CodeMasters"

Edited May 25, 2010 by Scrub