Closed Thread
And while you're at it, raise your hand if you're even reading--let alone getting anything out of--Will's Weekly Anti-Perry-Cut-and-Paste Article.
Who will take on Obama in 2012?
He is the guy who is supposed to save the party from Mitt Romney, but instead he looks like the one who will get Obama elected with nine percent unemployment.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
X
User Lists
So you keep repeating. None of that opinion explains why you feel the need to copy and paste every article you find that expresses reasonable doubt about the strength of his candidacy, or to repeat yourself relentlessly on this point.
Should I start copying and pasting every article about how bad Obama's economic policies have been? Would that serve a useful purpose? If not, then what on earth are you hoping to accomplish?
Should I start copying and pasting every article about how bad Obama's economic policies have been? Would that serve a useful purpose? If not, then what on earth are you hoping to accomplish?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
You could do that if you want.
I think Perry is very dangerous and despite what you think I don't paste every article I find that is critical of him. I didn't paste the nutjob Ron Paul supporter trying to find strippers who slept with Perry (according to him).
I won't tell you what Presidential candidate in what semi horror movie he reminds me of.
I think Perry is very dangerous and despite what you think I don't paste every article I find that is critical of him. I didn't paste the nutjob Ron Paul supporter trying to find strippers who slept with Perry (according to him).
I won't tell you what Presidential candidate in what semi horror movie he reminds me of.
X
User Lists
Of course I could do that. What I asked is whether or not it would serve a useful purpose. Anyone reading this thread is crystal clear on what you think of Perry. So why repeat it? Advance an argument or not, but I don't see the point of sheer repetition. Please explain it to me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
You say it is repitition, each article points out different things.
I have never seen a major presidential candidate, one that actually has a chance of being nominated, from either party with such extreme views and such a reckless, angry campaigner.
And the more I see of him the scarier he seems.
I have never seen a major presidential candidate, one that actually has a chance of being nominated, from either party with such extreme views and such a reckless, angry campaigner.
And the more I see of him the scarier he seems.
X
User Lists
You could do that if you want.
I think Perry is very dangerous and despite what you think I don't paste every article I find that is critical of him. I didn't paste the nutjob Ron Paul supporter trying to find strippers who slept with Perry (according to him).
I won't tell you what Presidential candidate in what semi horror movie he reminds me of.
I think Perry is very dangerous and despite what you think I don't paste every article I find that is critical of him. I didn't paste the nutjob Ron Paul supporter trying to find strippers who slept with Perry (according to him).
I won't tell you what Presidential candidate in what semi horror movie he reminds me of.
__________________
...uh the post is up there...
...uh the post is up there...
X
User Lists
You've pretty much lost any credibility or sense of perspective you might have once had if you're comparing Rick Perry to a psychopath from a flippin' movie. Any even remotely self-reflective person, when they arrived at such an incredible idea, would feel obliged to step back and reexamine the set of prejudices and political biases that led them to it.
If you are unable to express political disagreement without comparing people to terrorists or accusing a candidate of being like a fictional sadist who blows up the world, it's time to take a sober look at your thought process. That is not the kind of thing rational, objective people do.
If you are unable to express political disagreement without comparing people to terrorists or accusing a candidate of being like a fictional sadist who blows up the world, it's time to take a sober look at your thought process. That is not the kind of thing rational, objective people do.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
But they haven't paid in as much as they take out, by definition, or the program wouldn't be insolvent and cuts would not be necessary. There is a gap between what is paid in and what is paid out, and other taxpayers make up the difference, which is growing all the time. So my point stands: if you want to say it's easy for people to turn their back on those who need help, it is just as valid to say it's easy to blindly support insolvent programs when the cost of doing so falls on someone else.
I don't think rich people think this at all. And I don't think it really matters if they do or not. None of the arguments I've presented to you, you may have noticed, suggest anything like this.
Why? They take on all sorts of other crucial systems, like the examples I continually give you about disaster relief, which you keep ignoring. It's easy to say they can't do it now, because now they've been relying on the Federal government and planning (or not planning) accordingly, and they haven't had any opportunity to try anything other than the mandated, top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.
And what are you worried about, exactly? That the states won't manage it very well and the programs will become unsustainable? Because that's what we have right now. You're basically arguing against a system that might fail in the way the current system already has! As I keep saying: the status quo is not an option. So what are you suggesting? Keep the system at current levels and stand idly by as it goes bankrupt, leaving all sorts of other people without any care at all? Because that's what it sounds like.
No, I'm not inferring that anyone should refuse government help. I am saying no more or less than that I know what it's like to be poor, my family qualified for assistance and could have really used it, but we didn't accept it and eventually improved our lot a bit, and I'm glad we didn't, in retrospect. My story isn't designed to be instructive for others, it's supposed to demonstrate that what I'm arguing does not come from some place of privilege, though even if it did, none of the arguments I'm making would rely on that.
At this point you're basically asking me to audit your mother's life, which is awkward to say the least. It's a no-win scenario. If you want me to poke and prod and ask questions and try to come up with mistakes that could have been avoided, I assume there are some (there are in everyone's life), but that doesn't sound like a very nice way for either of us to discuss the issue. If that's what you want, so be it, but I don't see any way that doesn't become unnecessarily personal and possibly heated.
I don't think rich people think this at all. And I don't think it really matters if they do or not. None of the arguments I've presented to you, you may have noticed, suggest anything like this.
Why? They take on all sorts of other crucial systems, like the examples I continually give you about disaster relief, which you keep ignoring. It's easy to say they can't do it now, because now they've been relying on the Federal government and planning (or not planning) accordingly, and they haven't had any opportunity to try anything other than the mandated, top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.
And what are you worried about, exactly? That the states won't manage it very well and the programs will become unsustainable? Because that's what we have right now. You're basically arguing against a system that might fail in the way the current system already has! As I keep saying: the status quo is not an option. So what are you suggesting? Keep the system at current levels and stand idly by as it goes bankrupt, leaving all sorts of other people without any care at all? Because that's what it sounds like.
No, I'm not inferring that anyone should refuse government help. I am saying no more or less than that I know what it's like to be poor, my family qualified for assistance and could have really used it, but we didn't accept it and eventually improved our lot a bit, and I'm glad we didn't, in retrospect. My story isn't designed to be instructive for others, it's supposed to demonstrate that what I'm arguing does not come from some place of privilege, though even if it did, none of the arguments I'm making would rely on that.
At this point you're basically asking me to audit your mother's life, which is awkward to say the least. It's a no-win scenario. If you want me to poke and prod and ask questions and try to come up with mistakes that could have been avoided, I assume there are some (there are in everyone's life), but that doesn't sound like a very nice way for either of us to discuss the issue. If that's what you want, so be it, but I don't see any way that doesn't become unnecessarily personal and possibly heated.
I was simply trying to put a face on the abstract concept of government assistance, which you seem to demonstrate a serious lack of compassion toward or at least indifferent.
I frankly don't give a damn what you think, you portray that any or all utilizing assistance are freeloaders until they get by on their own means.
I was not asking for your approval, especially considering that you're ideology is pretty much of the mind-set that everyone has the same ability to become financially independent, this is just wrong-headed and condescending.
Oh, and by the way: I could be a totally heartless bastard, and it would not make what I'm saying any less true. The fact that you want to argue about my emotional state, rather than the facts I am presenting to you, tells me that you don't even care about the facts. You don't care if what you want now will cause more suffering later. If you cared, you'd be talking about those facts and perhaps telling me why you don't believe them. But almost all of your time is spent arguing with other things, or trying to make out that I lack empathy, which you seem to do by inventing things I never said, to boot.
SS and Medicare COULD be sured-up
but not under the "cut everything under the sun for the sake of even lower taxes on corporate America" mentality, which you won't just admit to directly. Essentially, we have to stop funding these programs to fix them.
Also, the phrase "even lower taxes on corporate America" implies a) that corporate America doesn't, you know, employ normal people like the ones you're saying we need to care more about, and b) that corporate tax rates are not already high. As I explained earlier, they are quite high compared to other countries. You can't just ignore the facts you don't like and go on repeating things.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
That character talked like Rick Perry. And the Sheen character was not a psychopath. He was just an unstable character who wasn't suited for the Presidency. His outward demeanor is very similar to Sheen. We didnt know until the end of the movie (the most contrived part of it) he would shield himself with a baby. I am not accusing Rick Perry of that, but I am saying this. I don't trust Rick Perry to be President during a world crisis situation. He does not have the temperment for it. Can you imagine him in the Oval Office during a Cuban Missle Crisis?
X
User Lists
I think the idea that you can imagine how these candidates will behave in that situation, and that you should make any kind of judgment based on your ability to imagine these things, is inherently flawed to begin with.
By the way, this is the guy you're talking about:
By the way, this is the guy you're talking about:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Good movie.
Rick Perry has the most bizarre personality I have ever seen for someone running for President with the exception of Ross Perot, another one from Texas. Praying publicly for rain and the country, making succession threats, and saying crazy things like being opposed to the direct election of Senators, and calling public official traitors and haters of America. The only reason he has any chance of winning the nomination is because Republicans are in a very angry mood and in times like these sometimes voters turn to extremists. George Wallace did surprisingly well as a third party candidate in 1968 and if he had been nominated by one of the two major parties could very well have been elected President. And make no mistake about it, that is what Rick Perry is, his book published last year makes that very clear, an extremist.
Rick Perry has the most bizarre personality I have ever seen for someone running for President with the exception of Ross Perot, another one from Texas. Praying publicly for rain and the country, making succession threats, and saying crazy things like being opposed to the direct election of Senators, and calling public official traitors and haters of America. The only reason he has any chance of winning the nomination is because Republicans are in a very angry mood and in times like these sometimes voters turn to extremists. George Wallace did surprisingly well as a third party candidate in 1968 and if he had been nominated by one of the two major parties could very well have been elected President. And make no mistake about it, that is what Rick Perry is, his book published last year makes that very clear, an extremist.
X
User Lists
I was simply trying to put a face on the abstract concept of government assistance, which you seem to demonstrate a serious lack of compassion toward or at least indifferent. Not everyone on these programs are career food stamp recipients or lazy, stay at home parents. My Mom sacrificed, as many, and is no different than those who collected or paid into it. Now that it's time to pay out, everyone's outraged. I frankly don't give a damn what you think, you portray that any or all utilizing assistance are freeloaders until they get by on their own means. I was not asking for your approval, especially considering that you're ideology is pretty much of the mind-set that everyone has the same ability to become financially independent, this is just wrong-headed and condescending. Any time I bring up my experience, which you have done as well, because I'm arguing against what you believe you find any or all a means of excusing it away, just admit you are an idealogue trying to position yourself as a pragmatist. SS and Medicare COULD be sured-up, but not under the "cut everything under the sun for the sake of even lower taxes on corporate America" mentality, which you won't just admit to directly. Essentially, we have to stop funding these programs to fix them.
__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?
X
Favorite Movies
Good movie.
Rick Perry has the most bizarre personality I have ever seen for someone running for President with the exception of Ross Perot, another one from Texas. Praying publicly for rain and the country, making succession threats, and saying crazy things like being opposed to the direct election of Senators, and calling public official traitors and haters of America. The only reason he has any chance of winning the nomination is because Republicans are in a very angry mood and in times like these sometimes voters turn to extremists. George Wallace did surprisingly well as a third party candidate in 1968 and if he had been nominated by one of the two major parties could very well have been elected President. And make no mistake about it, that is what Rick Perry is, his book published last year makes that very clear, an extremist.
There's a difference between ideas which are unconventional and ideas which are extreme. Rick Perry's positions are not extreme, they're just not talked about. We see this all the time. Ron Paul's view on currency is something that, in recent decades, has not been talked about as a serious political issue, but that doesn't make it extreme. Similarly, the idea that states should handle more things than they currently do is not extreme at all, it's just not something anybody's been willing to stand up for in a long time.
As you referenced earlier, the idea of states' rights was part of a massive debate among the Founding Fathers. That debate was a bit more extreme; it was about Federalism as a whole. The Federalists won, of course, and I'm glad for that, but the fact that it was a debate at all tells me that there's plenty of validity to the far less extreme position that the Federal government should do less.
There's no real way to resolve your accusations about his tone. It's certainly true that modern candidates don't usually sound like this, but I don't think that can be treated like an inherent criticism, and I think you're putting an unwarranted amount of emphasis on it compared to the issues. But the claims of extremism are definitely a misnomer. They are unusual positions, and positions candidates are not usually willing to take because they're unusual, but that doesn't make them extreme, particularly given the history of the idea and the relative failure of the top-down approach we've been trying, in the hands of both parties.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yoda, you're absolutely right, my mother should have kept at a job, requiring her to take medicine that was slowly killing her, and tried to keep working with deteriorating kidney function, anything to appease your world view where all misfortune is solely due to poor choices. I guess her "mistake" was being born with a long-term medical condition. I'm done trying to drill something in your head, that you are blind to. You said yourself, you could "poke and prod," to find some logistical reason why it wasn't necessary, because your brain is wired to discount anything that goes against the idea of government assistance being required.
As far as fixing SS and Medicare, well you won't like it, but raise taxes, THEN oversight on who actually receives it, because there are plenty of people capable of living without it that get it because of loop holes and lack of oversight.
As far as fixing SS and Medicare, well you won't like it, but raise taxes, THEN oversight on who actually receives it, because there are plenty of people capable of living without it that get it because of loop holes and lack of oversight.
Last edited by FILMFREAK087; 09-05-11 at 04:30 AM.
The fact that you think this tells me you're not really reading what I'm saying.
X
Favorite Movies
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my posts at this point. Like you see the words, but all you hear is the grownup voice in Charlie Brown, saying whatever you think conservatives actually believe. I'm sure it's much easier to have opinions when you get to pretend people who disagree are evil.
I didn't accuse your mother, at any point, of being a freeloader, or of bringing her sickness upon herself. What I said was that everyone's made poor choices at different points and that it's not a good way to discuss the issue to start auditing individuals. It's you, not me, that keeps wanting to talk about personal testimonials. You say this is to put a "personal face" on things, but it seems a whole lot more like it's to sidestep facts, as if the sheer emotional weight of one's personal situation should render these things irrelevant. It doesn't, and it can't, because there are other people to consider, too. A point you ignore every single time I raise it.
As for your so-called solution: do you have even the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that a significant amount of Medicare is wasted on fraud? Because for this to work as a solution, you'd have to be saving billions. I'm going to guess "no." Though if such evidence did exist (or if you're actually just suggesting that Medicare should only go to people whose life actually depends on it) that would seem to be a massive problem worthy of the "sledgehammer" and not the "scalpel" you talked about earlier. So you're trying to have it both ways: to say we shouldn't be upending the system in dramatic ways, but also suggesting that Medicare is so incredibly abused that we need to substantially reform it. In fact, what you just suggested would, assuming your initial assessment was correct, involve massive cuts. You just think massive cuts should be accompanied by oversight, or some shift in requirements. So congratulations, you've now adopted about 90% of the Heartless Conservative position.
Meanwhile, my point stands: I could be a heartless bastard, and it wouldn't change anything I'm saying. I happen to know I'm not a heartless bastard, and don't really give a damn if you think I am, because you clearly made your mind up about a whole lot of things before you ever dived into this discussion. And I don't want people doing equations with empathy, anyway, I want them doing them with numbers. Do them without numbers and you know what you get? A whole lot more people in need of empathy.
I didn't accuse your mother, at any point, of being a freeloader, or of bringing her sickness upon herself. What I said was that everyone's made poor choices at different points and that it's not a good way to discuss the issue to start auditing individuals. It's you, not me, that keeps wanting to talk about personal testimonials. You say this is to put a "personal face" on things, but it seems a whole lot more like it's to sidestep facts, as if the sheer emotional weight of one's personal situation should render these things irrelevant. It doesn't, and it can't, because there are other people to consider, too. A point you ignore every single time I raise it.
As for your so-called solution: do you have even the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that a significant amount of Medicare is wasted on fraud? Because for this to work as a solution, you'd have to be saving billions. I'm going to guess "no." Though if such evidence did exist (or if you're actually just suggesting that Medicare should only go to people whose life actually depends on it) that would seem to be a massive problem worthy of the "sledgehammer" and not the "scalpel" you talked about earlier. So you're trying to have it both ways: to say we shouldn't be upending the system in dramatic ways, but also suggesting that Medicare is so incredibly abused that we need to substantially reform it. In fact, what you just suggested would, assuming your initial assessment was correct, involve massive cuts. You just think massive cuts should be accompanied by oversight, or some shift in requirements. So congratulations, you've now adopted about 90% of the Heartless Conservative position.
Meanwhile, my point stands: I could be a heartless bastard, and it wouldn't change anything I'm saying. I happen to know I'm not a heartless bastard, and don't really give a damn if you think I am, because you clearly made your mind up about a whole lot of things before you ever dived into this discussion. And I don't want people doing equations with empathy, anyway, I want them doing them with numbers. Do them without numbers and you know what you get? A whole lot more people in need of empathy.
Last edited by Yoda; 09-05-11 at 01:22 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/11334...gibson-guitars
Fun fact: Martin guitars imports from the same place but never got inspected/probed.
Fun fact 2: Martin guitars has donated to the democratic party
Obama is a damn vampire for american jobs
Fun fact: Martin guitars imports from the same place but never got inspected/probed.
Fun fact 2: Martin guitars has donated to the democratic party
Obama is a damn vampire for american jobs
X
Favorite Movies
X