Wow, the trolls got really angry in this thread. Awesome.

I'm not sure what I enjoyed more; relcec exhibiting creepy stalker behaviour towards Weaver, or SouthernFriedIndependent's butthurt and projection as he got his ass handed to him on numerous occasions.

I kind of wish relcec hadn't rage quit, that could have been an epic meltdown.
GaryPDX epic.

One Bad Apple: Tyrone Slothrop: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.

Far better to follow the morally superior tenet of "Fark you, give me yours"

Neither tenet is an appropriate description. It's more like "Ok, Billy, you got the red crayon first; now that you are done using it, share it with your classmates." If Billy is a Republican he will color his entire page red and then break the crayon out of spite because IT'S MINE I GOT IT FIRST!

SouthernFriedYankee: My political affiliation is post-partisan. They're all full of shiat.

And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Sure, you're a 'post-partisan' 'independent'. But The Party has built up such an imaginary threat in your head, that every time its you and the ballot you fall in line hook line and sucker. You fear that letting those evil 'command economy' 'leftists' even an ounce of power will commence the Red Revolution.

Both Sides Are Bad, So You'll Vote Republican.

Now bend over, Sunny Jim, 'cause Mitt Romney needs another horse and it ain't comin' out of his Cayman bank account.

At least half to the expanded health coverage in the law-an estimated 16 million people-is to come through bringing Medicaid eligibility, in 2014, up to a national threshold, 133 percent of the poverty level (about $31,000 for a family of four.)

Too bad the Supreme Corporatists -- err Supreme Court will be ruling against the medicaid expansion once they rule in favor of the mandate.

GAT_00: It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.

Next week's Futurama is touching on that very subject

dervish16108: At least half to the expanded health coverage in the law-an estimated 16 million people-is to come through bringing Medicaid eligibility, in 2014, up to a national threshold, 133 percent of the poverty level (about $31,000 for a family of four.)

Too bad the Supreme Corporatists -- err Supreme Court will be ruling against the medicaid expansion once they rule in favor of the mandate.

I'm curious what reasoning they could possibly use to declare the expansion unconstitutional. Clement was completely unconvincing to my eyes.

bugontherug: Virtually none of this post addresses the original point of contention: re: both sides are equally bad, serving only the interests of the top .001%. I've pointed out several reforms which have helped and will continue to help millions of people well outside that income range.. You've responded with "well, I disagree with all of this as a matter of policy." But you have not demonstrated how:

1) increasing food stamp benefits doesn't help people who can't afford to buy their own food, or how food stamps help people in the .001%

How about decreasing the regulations that have frozen the hiring in this country? People are not obligated to hire others just because someone things they should. I'd rather see jobs instead of welfare checks. And again - how is it going to be paid for? The out of control spending is ruining the country's credit and the economy overall. This is not good for the poor, who are by definition at the bottom of the heap. And the abuse of the system has become staggering; I live in Memphis, and there are lots of people who only work long enough to max out their EITC, at which point they quit and go back on welfare until next year. I'm sure that happens in a lot of other places, and Obama's expansion of welfare eligibility and relaxation of restrictions has only made it worse. As to how leftist entitlement speding benefits the top 0.01%, that's a subject for another day. I believe it does, and can offer a solid argument to support it. But I need to go find the essay I wrote, and that's going to involve a lot of digging around in my desktop's archive drive.

2) extending unemployment benefits doesn't help people who can't find work, or how extending unemployment benefits helps the .001%

There is evidence that the extension of unemployment benefits, which are substantially higher than welfare in many cases, have delayed the recovery, because a lot of folks are content to limp by on unemployment. As to entitlement spending and the oligarchy, see above. I will go find it, and soon, but not immediately.

3) PPACA doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions, and people who otherwise could not afford to buy health insurance. Nor how mandating coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and indigents helps the .001%.

Obamacare is a total mess. If you think the insurance companies (0.01%ers, mind you) wrote anything that actually will benefit people in the long term, you're dreaming. It's going to bankrupt the private healthcare system and then the government will "have" to ride in and save the day.

4) How the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, while inadequate, helped Wall Street, who lobbied vigorously against its passage, and now give overwhelmingly to Republicans.

The regulations are crippling the smaller institutions, while the Wall Streeters helped write the damn thing and know the loopholes. So it helped to remove competition from the biggest fish in that pond, which does help them.

5) How credit card reform doesn't help people--mostly very poor, and outside the .001%--who've been historically targeted for bogus fees and transactions structured to create faux overdrafts.

And again, whatever money they've kept the banks from getting by whatever restrictions they put in place just gets taken from those people in a different way.

You have not demonstrated these things, because you cannot do so. You cannot do so, because they are false.

You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not. The amount spent on thee War on Poverty is equal to the officially-stated amount of the national debt. (If you include all the off-the-books, unfunded obligations, you can add at least a zero to the actual amount of the debt.) And yet we still have poverty, and the percentage of people living in it has not decreased. Why is that? Oh yeah, because Reagan. Because capitalism. Because teabaggers. Because everything except the truth, which is that the policies you support do not work.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.

X-boxershorts: If insurance companies alone had authored this bill, there's no way in hell they would have included a max 20% profit/overhead cap on their business model.

They know they can get that changed, down the road.

Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.

so which democrats do you support?

the white ones

Weaver95: relcec:
you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you....

what's a 'pholibertarian'?

*scratches head*

He likes his pho all bootstrappy. Personally, I like mine with rice noodles.

St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

Sp did Dwight Eisehauer. Todays republicans are some sort of collection of odd nitwits

X-boxershorts: SouthernFriedYankee: You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not.

THAT Line right there is where you find your full derp. It comes straight from the Hannity playbook. And it's complete bunk.

Every post you've made in this thread has some level of rationality. But ALWAYS comes back to full derp in one sentence.

It's derp all the way down-standard boilerplate Beck, Limblabb, Savage, Hannity bullshiat. "Job killing regulations" "Obama is Bush's third term and Carter's second" "libs want to control every part of your life", etc, etc. I don't think I've seen him claim that liberals are "un-American" yet, but I'm sure it's not going to be long.

He's like a machine that spouts willful ignorance.

Weaver95: so which democrats do you support?

I did vote for Obama in 2008, for previously stated reasons, namely McCain being Bush's third term, and being tired of Wall Street robbing us blind. Whoops. Patriot Act ramp-ups, Wall Street thievery, plus double digit unemployment and inflation. Thanks, Barry.

At this point, I don't think there's a damn bit of difference between them, except on superficial issues. I don't believe in rampant entitlement spending, so "but he gave more tax money to the poor" doesn't convince me that Obama is a good thing. The trend toward smaller families amongst the tax payers and larger ones amongst the tax-getters is predictable - and disasterous. It's created a permanent dependency class - also predictable and disasterous...for the country and citizenry. For the pols it's a great deal, which is why the GOP has lept on the bandwagon recently.

The Republicans still tout trickle down as if it's actually going to work, while giving the lip service to entitlements needed to get votes. Then they sprikle a fat layer of Jesus all over it to distract people from the fact that the oligarchs are plundering us with reckless abandon.

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor. They also blather on about "the top 1%" while ignoring the top 0.01% who actually profit from the redistribution of wealth, and pay virtually nothing in taxes.

Both parties allow the top 0.01% to do as they please, because those individuals own the pols in both parties.

Ergo, both parties are bad.

If either party actually did anything that truly improved the lives of the middle and upper middle classes, I'd support them. If either side actually embraced the idea of reducing the size and scope of government, I'd support them. To the leftists on this thread, since I don't support their leftist collectivist ideals, I'm a republican. I'm also called a troll and accused of "butthurt." Well, they can keep saying it, but it isn't true. I'm a limited government, free market, sound money conservative. The Republian party is none of those things. I disagree with leftist ideals because I firmly believe they do not work, and that the country is in free fall right now thanks largely to the out of control spending by the government, not only on personal welfare, but also on corporate welfare and the military-industrial-banking complex.

Leftist Frkers obviously like to pretend that the liberty movement in this country doesn't exist. Or they think it's limited to the post-Palin Tea Party. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

born_yesterday: Tor_Eckman: "Obama is Bush's third term and Carter's second"

Is this the official talking point now? This morning, someone on FB posted a "what Obama inherited versus what we have now" load of derp, but to do so, they had to list some pretty crappy numbers that Bush rang up. It's as if to get rid of their personal embarrassment of Bush, they're trying to lump him in with Obama.

But Romney would be different. Yeah.

Just about everything he has posted is the same crap I hear every day from my co-worker who is a regular Beck listener (and who told me the other day that Brightbart was a "crusader") He also lies and tells me he never voted for Bush. He's the most frightened twenty-nine year old person I've ever met.

SouthernFriedYankee: Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

No, all I needed to see was you go off on Obamacare, 'leftists', and 'command economy', then make some mealy-mouthed attempts at Both Sides Are Bad. You couldn't have outed yourself worse if you had slapped a Romney 2012 sticker in your profile.

And wrong.

Secret ballots are amazing things, but I know bullshiat when I smell it. And so does everyone else here too.

SouthernFriedYankee: Weaver95: so which democrats do you support?

I did vote for Obama in 2008, for previously stated reasons, namely McCain being Bush's third term, and being tired of Wall Street robbing us blind. Whoops. Patriot Act ramp-ups, Wall Street thievery, plus double digit unemployment and inflation. Thanks, Barry.

At this point, I don't think there's a damn bit of difference between them, except on superficial issues. I don't believe in rampant entitlement spending, so "but he gave more tax money to the poor" doesn't convince me that Obama is a good thing. The trend toward smaller families amongst the tax payers and larger ones amongst the tax-getters is predictable - and disasterous. It's created a permanent dependency class - also predictable and disasterous...for the country and citizenry. For the pols it's a great deal, which is why the GOP has lept on the bandwagon recently.

The Republicans still tout trickle down as if it's actually going to work, while giving the lip service to entitlements needed to get votes. Then they sprikle a fat layer of Jesus all over it to distract people from the fact that the oligarchs are plundering us with reckless abandon.

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor. They also blather on about "the top 1%" while ignoring the top 0.01% who actually profit from the redistribution of wealth, and pay virtually nothing in taxes.

Both parties allow the top 0.01% to do as they please, because those individuals own the pols in both parties.

Ergo, both parties are bad.

If either party actually did anything that truly improved the lives of the middle and upper middle classes, I'd support them. If either side actually embraced the idea of reducing the size and scope of government, I'd support them. To the leftists on this thread, since I don't support their leftist collectivist ideals, I'm a republican. I'm also called a troll and accused of "butthurt." Well, they can keep sayi ...

"Leftists" is the new "libtard". Progressive never really stuck as an insult, did it?

falcon176: Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.

so which democrats do you support?

the white ones

OF COURSE I'm racist; why else would I oppose Obama? Certainly it can't be for his policies, or for the fact that he lied about who he was and what he was going to do.

Calling you an idiot is not ad hominem - it's the truth.

One of the burdens of society is having to pay taxes. Taxes that provide for services I use, such as roads, and services that I hope to not need to use, such as the fire department.

One of the benefits of society is that my taxes pay for stuff that I can't afford by myself, such as roads and fire protection.

One of the benefits of having medicare in place is that I don't have to worry about paying for my parents medical care. I know they can't afford to pay for it. I know I can't afford to pay for it.

One of the benefits of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare is that it allows people around me to have access to things like health care, food, a place to live. If they can't legally get those things, they either go without, or turn to crime. I don't want people breaking into my house to steal things so they can get food or medicine. That is why we have a safety net.


/I'll start voting Republican once I'm a multi-millionare. Until then, I'll start looking out for people that have a direct impact on my life.

Benni K Rok: One of the burdens of society is having to pay taxes. Taxes that provide for services I use, such as roads, and services that I hope to not need to use, such as the fire department.

One of the benefits of society is that my taxes pay for stuff that I can't afford by myself, such as roads and fire protection.

One of the benefits of having medicare in place is that I don't have to worry about paying for my parents medical care. I know they can't afford to pay for it. I know I can't afford to pay for it.

One of the benefits of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare is that it allows people around me to have access to things like health care, food, a place to live. If they can't legally get those things, they either go without, or turn to crime. I don't want people breaking into my house to steal things so they can get food or medicine. That is why we have a safety net.


/I'll start voting Republican once I'm a multi-millionare. Until then, I'll start looking out for people that have a direct impact on my life.

LEFTIST!!!!!!

X-boxershorts: SouthernFriedYankee: You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not.

THAT Line right there is where you find your full derp. It comes straight from the Hannity playbook. And it's complete bunk.

So you're saying you do not believe in this, either?

/Hannity sucks balls

Tor_Eckman: LEFTIST!!!!!!

So?

LouDobbsAwaaaay:
I don't think so. I've run across that situation before, and the mods don't like their pets to be picked on. I had forum posts deleted by a mod for calling out a troll, then had further ones deleted for even mentioning that it happened. I didn't see any of that here.

To be fair, doing that would have made it way too obvious that its a mod approved account, or mod itself.

Although, to be fairer, the two common mod regular posters on this tab aren't exactly known for logical thinking or rationale.

Tor_Eckman: "Leftists" is the new "libtard". Progressive never really stuck as an insult, did it?

Leftist is an accurate description of your views; the fact that you think I mean it as an insult tells me a lot about you.

You are not "progressives." There's nothing progressive about your views. They result in less freedom, less opportunity and less success for the general public. But they never do manage to stop the real rulers from running roghshod over the lot of us, do they?! Those folks have plenty of freedom, success and opportunity. And behind the scenes, they hand-pick all the national canididates of both parties to make sure it stays that way.

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: "Leftists" is the new "libtard". Progressive never really stuck as an insult, did it?

Leftist is an accurate description of your views; the fact that you think I mean it as an insult tells me a lot about you.

You are not "progressives." There's nothing progressive about your views. They result in less freedom, less opportunity and less success for the general public. But they never do manage to stop the real rulers from running roghshod over the lot of us, do they?! Those folks have plenty of freedom, success and opportunity. And behind the scenes, they hand-pick all the national canididates of both parties to make sure it stays that way.

So I guess it's Johnson then, right?

You're so predictable.

Expand the welfare rolls - more great original thinking from the left.

Over 65% of the American public DO NOT WANT ObamaCare. Shows how "in tune" our "President" is, doesn't it?

NeverDrunk23: To be fair, doing that would have made it way too obvious that its a mod approved account, or mod itself.

Although, to be fairer, the two common mod regular posters on this tab aren't exactly known for logical thinking or rationale.

I'm not a mod. I've had this account since 2002. I used to argue exactly the way you guys do - invective and insult - only from the other side. I quit coming here because it was not productive nor a good use of my time. I ran across the link in my bookmarks a few months ago, and decided to come check the place out again.

Nor am I a mod pet. I've been put on timeout several times for spouting the same sort of blather you folks have been spouting - all heat, no light. I've also had a posts deleted and so forth, for the same reason.

I understand that your only recourse is to label me a troll, mod's pet, etc. because my central assertion - that the entitlement spending championed by the economic left does not work out in the long run, and has severely damaged the country - is one you do not wish to address. I've been accused of being a racist, and predicted to call you folks "un-American." Next you'll accuse me of hating poor people and minorities. None of it's true, but that's obviously all you've got. A decade ago, when I was here, I would have responded in kind, with "libtard" and so forth. That accomplishes exactly nothing. I've also seen every rational point I've made labeled "derp" because you don't agree with it. Again, I could respond in kind, but what does that accomplish, exactly?

The big problem you will have with me in these threads is that I'm not a Christian, nor do I support the perpetual war philosophy, nor do I support the complete and total deregulation of all business, industry and finance, nor do I believe it's unreasonable to think that a country as prosperous as ours should have a safety net in place for the truly disadvantaged, and people who truly fall on hard times. So the things you reflexively hurl at most folks who today call themselves "conservatives" aren't going to work on me.

But I invite thoughtful discussion with anyone who wants to engage in it.

Who's that subby... the Supreme Court justices?

Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.

Tor_Eckman: So I guess it's Johnson then, right?

Non sequitur.

Trapper439: Wow, the trolls got really angry in this thread. Awesome.

I'm not sure what I enjoyed more; relcec exhibiting creepy stalker behaviour towards Weaver, or SouthernFriedIndependent's butthurt and projection as he got his ass handed to him on numerous occasions.

this thread delivers!

relcec went off the deep end and SFI is just a rambling idiot as far as I can tell

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah ... I don't think you did. You're oblivious to how utterly ordinary you are as just another Republican who avoids criticism by pretending to be an independent. You're all like this, and you all have a chip on your shoulder about how people look down on you as intellectually inferior.

I don't care what you think. And bub, the way you write proves that you look down on everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. If you could articulate your views intelligently, that would be a better way to go than personal attacks. The most I've said is that leftists tend to think they're better than everyone else. That's not a slam on you personally, that's what I believe to be an accurate assessment of the leftist worldview, based upon dozens if not hundreds of interactions with them over the decades. Nothing you're posted here has in any way changed this perception. You, OTOH, have been snide, superioristic and have done nothing but personally attack me for daring to disagree with your worldview. But I'm the immature one in this conversation. Right.

just gonna point out the obvious fact that both sides think they're "better" than the other side

"better" being hugely vague and wide open to multiple interpretations

SouthernFriedYankee: I'm a republican. I'm also called a troll and accused of "butthurt." Well, they can keep saying it, but it isn't true.


When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.

You've been labeled as a troll because you spout nothing but talking points that have all been shot down here so many times that it's not worth the trouble to do it again. But just for shiats and grins, let's look at the national debt so far under Obama:



Now you'll notice, most of the 5 trillion you mentioned above is related to ongoing spending policies that he had nothing to do with. So your point is bullshiat.

And the whopper "He got practically everything he wanted"? I mean, if this is not a troll then you are one of the most willfully ignorant posters I've ever seen here.

So there are two blatant bullshiat talking points. Frankly, I'm too lazy to point out every one of the lies that you have posted in this thread. So please stop.