Remember when Obama...

[ImmortalFlame]

only to those that I feel have an alternative objective

For your edification, you asked me how many of the poor do I support personally.
If you would care to consider the word "personally", the definition is:
from: the definition of personally
adverb


So in actuality I do not "personally" support a poor person since there is no direct contact.

You're getting lost in semantics when there was no confusion over semantics in the question. It really isn't a difficult question to answer.

 

[esmith]

You're getting lost in semantics when there was no confusion over semantics in the question. It really isn't a difficult question to answer.

to each his own

 

[Revoltingest]

You could, except what you are claiming about liberals is completely off base.

So you think.
But appearances differ from outside the group.
And I believe you're way off base about conservatives.
The way you 2 groups go after each other....so polarized & hostile.

 

[Underhill]

So you think.
But appearances differ from outside the group.
And I believe you're way off base about conservatives.
The way you 2 groups go after each other....so polarized & hostile.

Yes, because you never would stoop so low.

History backs me up. Compare republican states and democratic states, democratic states have more programs to help get people back to work.

There are exceptions. States like Kentucky offer little actual help, but they do mandate that some food stamp beneficiaries (in select counties where unemployment rates are lowest...) have to work. Texas offers cash to businesses that hire people. Which, again, seems odd to me. Companies generally hire people as they see the need. Giving them money to do so seems like free money from the government for business. But what do I know?

As many times as I have heard you claim you are not a republican, you spend an awful lot of time badmouthing democrats and defending republicans.

It might be more productive to look into these things yourself so you actually know what you are talking about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, because you never would stoop so low.

I stoop low all the time.
But you don't address what I actually I said.
I point out that you guys on the left & right are hostile to each other because of the polarization.
You're the two 500# gorillas in the room, while I'm an outsider...the loopy extremist just trying
to steer both of you in my direction. I don't see you guys as either good or evil....just dominant
parties who differ somewhat in beliefs.

History backs me up. Compare republican states and democratic states, democratic states have more programs to help get people back to work.

You invite me to do the comparison which you're sure would prove Democratic programs are better.
This would be a large project, which explains why you don't do it.
So I won't either.

There are exceptions. States like Kentucky offer little actual help, but they do mandate that some food stamp beneficiaries (in select counties where unemployment rates are lowest...) have to work. Texas offers cash to businesses that hire people. Which, again, seems odd to me. Companies generally hire people as they see the need. Giving them money to do so seems like free money from the government for business. But what do I know?

As many times as I have heard you claim you are not a republican, you spend an awful lot of time badmouthing democrats and defending republicans.

On a forum which leans mostly left, bogus attacks on the right will inspire me to defend them.
But you don't notice that I've regularly defended Obama for resisting calls to attack Iran.
In other venues which lean mostly right, then you'd find me debunking claims that conservatives
are fundamentally better than those country hating liberals.

It might be more productive to look into these things yourself so you actually know what you are talking about.

You always think that the reason you're right & I'm wrong is that you just know so much more.
Personal criticism replaces cogent argumentation.
This bespeaks over-confidence.

 

[Underhill]

I stoop low all the time.
But you don't address what I actually I said.
I point out that you guys on the left & right are hostile to each other because of the polarization.
You're the two 500# gorillas in the room, while I'm an outsider...the loopy extremist just trying
to steer both of you in my direction. I don't see you guys as either good or evil....just dominant
parties who differ somewhat in beliefs.

Yes, I know. They all do it. Your pat answer for everything.

You invite me to do the comparison which you're sure would prove Democratic programs are better.
This would be a large project, which explains why you don't do it.
So I won't either.

At least I give examples. At least I have looked into it. Yes, it's a big task, but you are the one who started the comparison when YOU made the comment that started this whole discussion, claiming democrats were just in favor of give aways (or some such nonsense).

On a forum which leans mostly left, bogus attacks on the right will inspire me to defend them.
But you don't notice that I've regularly defended Obama for resisting calls to attack Iran.
In other venues which lean mostly right, then you'd find me debunking claims that conservatives
are fundamentally better than those country hating liberals.

Sure, except you started the partisan nonsense by badmouthing democrats.

You always think that the reason you're right & I'm wrong is that you just know so much more.
Personal criticism replaces cogent argumentation.
This bespeaks over-confidence.

In this case it is clear I do. I don't wade into these arguments without educating myself. I may not know everything, but I try to get a baseline understanding of the issue at hand. It isn't all that hard to do.

 

[Underhill]

Not a "Trump supporter", but rather a Trump voter.
Hillary had her problems with being factual too....& with being ethical...& with being peaceful.
But those things didn't matter to her supporters, eh.

That's like claiming a pea pod is the same thing as a aircraft carrier cause they both float.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I know. They all do it. Your pat answer for everything.

You say that I have only "pat" answers.
I see thru the ruse....a way of dismissing anything you disagree
with by attacking the poster rather than addressing the issues.

It makes me wonder...
Why do you bother to post to me?
Why should I respond to continual ad hominems?

 

[Underhill]

You say that I have only "pat" answers.
I see thru the ruse....a way of dismissing anything you disagree
with by attacking the poster rather than addressing the issues.

It makes me wonder...
Why do you bother to post to me?
Why should I respond to continual ad hominems?

Why do you ignore the substance in my post and focus on the tone?

"The conservatives I know care as much about the poor as me liberal friends.
But their remedy to poverty differs. The former would make opportunity for
self sufficiency. Liberals would give largesse (with strings attached)."

This is from your post. You started this fight. Now, in the face of reality, you want to make it all personal.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's like claiming a pea pod is the same thing as a aircraft carrier cause they both float.

You misunderstand.
While I did vote for Trump, I find him too far afield
from my views, & too offensive to actually support him.
Have you not noticed my many criticisms of him &
some of his policies?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you ignore the substance in my post and focus on the tone?

I addressed both.
But your continual personal animus now looms larger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you ignore the substance in my post and focus on the tone?

"The conservatives I know care as much about the poor as me liberal friends.
But their remedy to poverty differs. The former would make opportunity for
self sufficiency. Liberals would give largesse (with strings attached)."

This is from your post. You started this fight. Now, in the face of reality, you want to make it all personal.

You believe that the quote is to start a fight?
It's detente, ie, acknowledging that both side share a goal of helping the poor.
They differ in methods.

 

[Underhill]

You believe that the quote is to start a fight?
It's detente, ie, acknowledging that both side share a goal of helping the poor.
They differ in methods.

But the premise simply buys into a useless stereotype that just isn't true historically. The debate becomes "get a job" vs "free money" instead of how do we best solve the real problems.

This is why I act dismissive. Real progress can't happen when people just simplify everything to the point of irrelevance.

 

[metis]

Yeah, but aren't you a "senior citizen" not a 12 year old kid. However, due to the sedentary lifestyle of a lot of today's youngsters I would probably guess it wouldn't be good for them. When I was a kid I would probably burn-up anything you fed me and still need more fuel

I was so skinny as a kid that I used to have to run around in the shower in order to get wet. And when I graduated from high school I weighed 135, and from college it went all the way up to 145! And I was in gymnastics, so I didn't lack musculature.

What we now know is that the elements that create heart disease just don't happen when we get older, and the high-fat over-eating American diet is largely to blame why cardio-vascular disease is so commonplace here. Therefore, our kids need to both learn about healthy eating but also be strongly encouraged to eat healthy, and this needs to be encouraged by parents, schools, and other institutions. To not do so simply will shorten their lives and lead to more health problems for them, so if we really care about our kids, we all need to encourage healthy habits in this and many other areas.

 

[Underhill]

You misunderstand.
While I did vote for Trump, I find him too far afield
from my views, & too offensive to actually support him.
Have you not noticed my many criticisms of him &
some of his policies?

Sure, but he's your man. You helped get him elected.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the premise simply buys into a useless stereotype that just isn't true historically. The debate becomes "get a job" vs "free money" instead of how do we best solve the real problems.

This is why I act dismissive. Real progress can't happen when people just simplify everything to the point of irrelevance.

Sure, but he's your man. You helped get him elected.

I see no potential for common ground.
Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[tytlyf]

So you think.
But appearances differ from outside the group.
And I believe you're way off base about conservatives.
The way you 2 groups go after each other....so polarized & hostile.

Sure, but he's your man. You helped get him elected.

Libertarians always settle for republican. Because they are both corporate driven.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're the two 500# gorillas in the room, while I'm an outsider...the loopy extremist just trying
to steer both of you in my direction. I don't see you guys as either good or evil....just dominant
parties who differ somewhat in beliefs.

I like that analogy. Except, in my case, the Conservatives are a 500# gorilla trying to tell me how evil I am and how I'm going to corrupt the youth and tear apart the moral fabrics of society, and the Liberals as the other gorilla whose gaggy and puky kumbaya crap that would rather see me as a disadvantaged minority that has to be in this repressed box (as if I need reminding) before a regular person.
Too bad we can't tranq them both and take over. Or just go straight to shotguns and have a hefty feast of roast elephant and fried donkey.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Libertarians always settle for republican. Because they are both corporate driven.

Do you know Noam Chomksy is a Libertarian? There are also Libertarian-Marxists. Miltonian Libertarians are practically mathematical when it comes to balancing the Constitution with government spending (more specifically based on GPD with Constitutional law in mind). And then you have the Koch like Libertarians, those with actual power, those who are very fiscally Conservative. Even Milton looks very generous compared to them. And then you can take it a step further into Nozickian Libertarianism, where the state is so ultra-minimalist it doesn't even provide for defense, is about a half-step away from anarchy, and makes Revoltingest's "minarchist" state look mega-huge.
If I had to guess, I would say most Libertarians are left-leaning on social issues, but closer to center/right on the economy. While I suspect most would want to see various stipulations and requirements met for welfare, I doubt many would support greatly weakening if not pulling the plug entirely like many politically-empowered Libertarians.

 

[tytlyf]

Do you know Noam Chomksy is a Libertarian? There are also Libertarian-Marxists. Miltonian Libertarians are practically mathematical when it comes to balancing the Constitution with government spending (more specifically based on GPD with Constitutional law in mind). And then you have the Koch like Libertarians, those with actual power, those who are very fiscally Conservative. Even Milton looks very generous compared to them. And then you can take it a step further into Nozickian Libertarianism, where the state is so ultra-minimalist it doesn't even provide for defense, is about a half-step away from anarchy, and makes Revoltingest's "minarchist" state look mega-huge.
If I had to guess, I would say most Libertarians are left-leaning on social issues, but closer to center/right on the economy. While I suspect most would want to see various stipulations and requirements met for welfare, I doubt many would support greatly weakening if not pulling the plug entirely like many politically-empowered Libertarians.

He's a libertarian-socialist.

Most libertarians vote republican. You may be able to find a couple oddities on the left that claim to be libertarian, but the majority vote republican.