Danged Liberals and their debates


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Danged Liberals and their debates

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243200 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 6:44:18 UTC
Last modified: 8 Jun 2012, 6:44:49 UTC

Barry feels that the majority of the country is actually pretty center, with some straying off to the far right.

Honestly, with the way this election seems to be dividing the country, I don't know how long Barry's statement may hold true.

It's as if the lines are being drawn.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Message 1243207 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 7:03:15 UTC
Last modified: 8 Jun 2012, 7:05:20 UTC

only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.


ROTFLMAO! Stop with The Inflamatory Rhetoric Madam President.

You sound like Peace Prize Potus The Pitiful. aka Have Drone Will Kill You.

A Business Decision is Not A Whim.

95% of Purse Stringers started out with Subsistence Wages. When they get to The Point in Their Life where People Have To Go, it is No Whim. Again, ROTFLMAO.

DroneOnDroneOnHarvestMoonDullNanDO
____________


BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,288,644
RAC: 3,843
United States
Message 1243216 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 7:40:28 UTC - in response to Message 1243200.

Ex, the lines were drawn on January 20, 2009.

The thing is, the two parties are (notwithstanding what the Teapublicans suggest) on that is pretty much center to center right (certainly center right from a European perspective) and one that is right wing.

The shift to the right was slowed, temporarily by the 2008 election, the economic mess, and issues presented by Bush II.

But, by early 2010, when the lock step positions of the Republican party insured that there would be no bi-partisan approaches to anything, the move to the right started up again big time. When the Republican party became the TeaPublican party toward the end of 2010, the shift was pretty full up in play.

You could see this in the reality shows of the formerly Republican party for the nomination in the TeaPublican Party -- Romney, a Republican, became a Rhino - by being as TeaPublican as he could be. The Newtster ran to the right. The only reason we didn't see a long running right wing winner is the apparent difficulty in being both very right wing and a competent politician.

So on a 1 to 10 scale, with extreme right wing being 1 and extreme left wing being 10, in 2000 we had something like 3 versus 7, in 2004 it was 3 versus 6, in 2008 it was 3 (with a VP at 1.5) versus 5.5 (Clinton would have been a 6).

This time around, with the ongoing obstruction going on, Obama might be pushing out back to a 6 (though from a European perspective he's a 5 or 4.5, but the with Teapublican control, that party is now moving more toward a 2 (or perhaps 1.5). So we will have an ugly election, especially with the support of the plutocratic Supreme Court which has made certain that ugliness will be very well funded.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243303 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 14:34:52 UTC

The repugs have been doing much work behind the scenes these past few years. Securing lesser positions in the hopes of long term control. It's almost a perfectly orchestrated symphony of parts, and I cannot believe how well they're pulling it off.


Again all I can hope is that people get out there this November and vote. Too many people on my side of the spectrum do not participate. And that needs to change.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243308 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 14:52:18 UTC - in response to Message 1243207.
Last modified: 8 Jun 2012, 14:59:02 UTC

95% of Purse Stringers started out with Subsistence Wages.


I'd like to see proof of this statement. ^

IMHO it's quite the opposite. I'll bet 95% of "purse stringers" were born into it (wealth/power). With only 5% making their way up the ladder starting with NOTHING.

This is usually liberals whole argument against the system. It encourages separation of wealth and separation of classes. Creating an artificial advantage for those born into it.


Back in the late 1800's, early 1900's I'm sure there were many more self made republicans. In the last 60 years however, I doubt there were many at all that have been able to climb the ranks without being born into the upper class.

The whole system being like this, makes sure the well off will never have to compete with other lesser classed people, who may be smarter or have more to offer society than they do. A fair system wouldn't hold people back like our current system does.



Perfect example. Mark Zuckerberg, (Facebook creator/C.E.O.) now there's an example of someone making their own way to riches from nothing. Right?

Wrong! Born into wealth, going to Harvard was written on his wall since birth, as well as all the connections that come with it. There are people everywhere that are capable of everything Zuckerberg is (as far as being a genius programmer). The problem is, only people like Zuckerberg get a chance, because of being born into wealth.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,299,679
RAC: 18,005
United States
Message 1243378 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 17:20:26 UTC - in response to Message 1243199.

being a white men's club.


I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.


Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."




Wow that's closed minded.


If you get laid off, obviously you start looking for another job! Duh!

What the hell are you going to do for income in the meantime? I guess people should just go hungry and homeless during their job search? Instead of getting the unemployment that they paid into out of their own taxes?

Wow. I'm really speechless Gary.

You speak as if unemployment is even close to supplementing job income. In my state it's capped off at well less than I make at my job, and I don't make much...

You don't think perhaps there are people that would say "damn the man stuck it too me again, well that is life, better get on with it."?
(part of getting on with it is filing for unemployment, which is there to provide financial security...)

First? Which first? Is there an issue with "first"? Don't you understand it?

Going on the experience of what I see everyday. Perhaps you are so far up the ladder you can't see the bottom. You don't see how much time some invest to game the system for a few more bucks. If they put that initiative into their job search, they wouldn't be unemployed. But they can never make that connection.

I just wonder if you know the unemployment office has to spend huge amounts of time chasing people down to find out if they are actually out looking for work? Maybe you didn't know that. They have to teach classes in how to apply for a job, what to wear for an interview, why showing up on time is important, that you need to turn your cell phone off in the interview, never mind how to write a resume.

Had to can a lazy butt some time back, after he had several years on the job. Just couldn't cut it anymore. Refused to do the job as instructed. Had to do it his way. Cost the company a lot of money fixing the equipment he abused doing it his way. (Found out how much when his replacement did the job the right way, more that his annual pay.) He couldn't fill out the paperwork so it was readable. A lot of reams of paper redoing and redoing it and time for others to check it. Found him sleeping on the job more than once. He would wander away from the job site without permission. Yes, this person wants a job. But we had to let him go.

Do you think he went looking for work? We didn't get a single call for a reference. Did we get a notice he had filed for unemployment, no. That usually comes PDQ as they want to verify hours worked before the first check goes out. We had silence for months. What we got was sued for workers comp. Of course in the exam he had to take he tested positive for a bunch of recreational medicines. He was so laid up in pain, they video taped him doing a 20 mile bike ride. At his deposition they asked him if he had ever been convicted of a crime, he said no and they handed him his conviction. He has lost four times, but he just has his shyster refile and do it again.

Yes, he needs a job. Unfortunately his skill set doesn't match what an employer wants. BTW he would have gotten more just filing for unemployment.

He isn't the only one. But then again I do have to deal with minimum wage workers. They think differently. Like the guy today. Had a big item broken for two weeks. It is going back into service. So today he suddenly remembers he needs to make some minor repairs to other stuff so we can turn it back on, Oh, I need to buy some parts. Lazy thinks differently than industrious.

Got another. He is now showing up late nearly every day. A couple weeks ago he left a door unlocked in his rush to leave Friday. Security guard found it Saturday and tripped the alarm. Boss had to drop his Saturday plans, drive in and lock the door. Grapevine is that he wants a raise. He just made it past one year. I don't think he is going to get a raise, I wonder if he isn't going to get fired. Lazy thinks differently than industrious.

You or I would be making calls to the friends network the same day we were laid off. One of our friends would remind us we need to contact the unemployment office. It would not be our FIRST thought. Lazy thinks differently than industrious. I see it on a daily basis.


____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243423 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 18:05:38 UTC
Last modified: 8 Jun 2012, 18:19:19 UTC

Which first?

First thing I would do is file. In my state it is just one phone call. And considering there is also a "0" week in which you will receive nothing, I don't know why anyone would wait even a single day to file.

That said, the next thing I would do is start my job hunt. I personally am relatively confident that my 10+ years in my trade would qualify me for a job relatively quickly. Probably within weeks.

I am not that "far up the ladder" trust me. I'm not going to go into specifics here but I am the sole income for a family of three, and I do indeed work at a factory.

So, I know first hand the type of people you refer to. Your opinions regarding how this specific type of person functions are not that far off. (I could however make a huge case WHY they are the way they are, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. If you have no opportunity in front of you it's either starve or get assistance....)

But, (don't make me quote your above statement), you implied that liberals/dems are those people...

First off, those types of people are so damn ignorant they wouldn't know what a liberal, Dem, Rep, or conservative is.

Second off, there are many many people all over the country (even at least one in these very boards), that are Ivy League educated, successful and well off, and still Democratic/Liberal.

Please do not lump the Dems vs. Repubs in with freeloaders vs. the rich.

{edit} I have never collected unemployment. I have never needed to. But you bet your @$$ if I lost my job I would file. Again it's about financial security, and in my case my unemployment would be about half of my takehome pay. Not enough to live off of, so I couldn't "suck off the system" or however you put it, I would still need a job ASAP.}
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,288,644
RAC: 3,843
United States
Message 1243455 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 19:17:18 UTC - in response to Message 1243423.

Ex, one of the factors these days for college educated (recent college graduates) is that often enough they graduate with a mortgage load of debt -- even those going to state universities in state accumulate $50K to $100K or more (if not 'parental funded'). On top of that, college educations often enough are inadequate for good jobs because in part the colleges today start from a much lower educational start point (I know, I've read some of the papers by college juniors submitted in my wife's classes).

When I graduated back in the early 70's, my final year tuition cost was $3200. I had moved off campus to save a lot on room/board -- about half of that was paid as university financial aid (not loans). I graduated with about $6K or $7K in debt -- small number -- but that was my first full time job salary as well.

And, of course, I was well positioned to move up (in 5 years doubled my salary, then relocated to the southwest at a 50% increase and doubled that within 6 years).

Of course, regarding finances, I 'cheated' -- married an MD (she was early in her residency which back then didn't pay a LOT). Married a cash flow <smile>. Managed her out of her credit card debt real fast. We cut a deal -- when she finished her residency, I had my corporate job. I'd fund her going in to private practice and then at an appropriate time, she'd fund me. Which we both did.

But we also 'cheated' -- no children. That does make an enormous difference. To tell you the truth, I find it difficult to see how young 'fresh outs' can get married, have kids, and finance two college loan burdens at the same time.

In any event, I think Gary may have something of a point in part -- over the past 20 to 30 years it seems to me that we've raised a new generation of now young adults, many of whom are not all that well prepared for the workplace - in training or mind set (a lot of entitlement going on). My sense though is that this particular failing is very much non-partisan.

So I reject the partisan spin on things like unemployment benefits and how people respond to job loss.

I also reject the partisan spin about long term unemployment issues -- that clearly cuts across voting lines and at least to some degree, across class lines -- there are folks who used to earn (and sadly spend) 6 figure incomes who haven't been able to find work for quite a while. It's the economy, stupid -- some Democrat said (and both Democrats and Republicans agree with that today, notwithstanding the REALLY STUPID 'the private sector is fine' comment by Obama today.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,299,679
RAC: 18,005
United States
Message 1243475 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 20:06:15 UTC - in response to Message 1243423.

But, (don't make me quote your above statement), you implied that liberals/dems are those people...

I think you will find that William made that statement. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=68330&nowrap=true#1242702

____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,288,644
RAC: 3,843
United States
Message 1243513 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 21:50:54 UTC - in response to Message 1243475.

Right. On that 10 point scale of mine it's William's 2 versus your 3.5 <smile>


But, (don't make me quote your above statement), you implied that liberals/dems are those people...

I think you will find that William made that statement. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=68330&nowrap=true#1242702

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,299,679
RAC: 18,005
United States
Message 1243689 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 3:36:08 UTC - in response to Message 1243513.

Right. On that 10 point scale of mine it's William's 2 versus your 3.5 <smile>

Oh, you forgot to ask, trust fund babies, republicans I'm sure, are lazy butts. Does it matter if a lazy butt gets a handout from Dad or Granddad or the Government? Still a lazy butt.


____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,288,644
RAC: 3,843
United States
Message 1243752 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 4:03:48 UTC - in response to Message 1243689.

So Gary, look at candidates -- seems there is something of an equal mix here

Poor/working class/military
Obama
Clinton
McCain
Reagan
McGovern
Dole

'Trust fund'
Bush II
Gore
Bush I
Kerry
Romney

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243754 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 4:06:11 UTC - in response to Message 1243475.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2012, 4:07:05 UTC

But, (don't make me quote your above statement), you implied that liberals/dems are those people...

I think you will find that William made that statement. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=68330&nowrap=true#1242702


I stand corrected. You did say however:
I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."


Which led me to believe you were saying the republicans were one type and dems were the other. I apologize for the confusion.

William can take my response to the above then.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243808 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 5:01:08 UTC - in response to Message 1243752.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2012, 5:02:01 UTC

So Gary, look at candidates -- seems there is something of an equal mix here

Poor/working class/military
Obama
Clinton
McCain
Reagan
McGovern
Dole

'Trust fund'
Bush II
Gore
Bush I
Kerry
Romney



That's good stuff Barry.

Pretty much rules out political beliefs on the basis of background.

That means both myself and our friends on the left, are somewhat mistaken.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,299,679
RAC: 18,005
United States
Message 1243818 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 5:14:06 UTC - in response to Message 1243752.

So Gary, look at candidates -- seems there is something of an equal mix here

Poor/working class/military
Obama
Clinton
McCain
Reagan
McGovern
Dole

'Trust fund'
Bush II
Gore
Bush I
Kerry
Romney

Lt. jg George HW Bush, Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation, was military. Perhaps you might check the categories and add a bunch more names.

____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243825 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 5:23:27 UTC - in response to Message 1243818.

So Gary, look at candidates -- seems there is something of an equal mix here

Poor/working class/military
Obama
Clinton
McCain
Reagan
McGovern
Dole

'Trust fund'
Bush II
Gore
Bush I
Kerry
Romney

Lt. jg George HW Bush, Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation, was military. Perhaps you might check the categories and add a bunch more names.



Um, Gary... With all due respect sir. Please do not tell me ANY Bush falls into the category of poor/working class.

I respect that the Bush family placed value in military services (we'll leave Jr. out of that one...), but NO bush falls into Barry's "Poor/working class/military" category. Perhaps he needs to re-word.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,299,679
RAC: 18,005
United States
Message 1243839 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 5:57:06 UTC - in response to Message 1243825.

I respect that the Bush family placed value in military services (we'll leave Jr. out of that one...), but NO bush falls into Barry's "Poor/working class/military" category. Perhaps he needs to re-word.

That was the suggestion, rethink. Military does not mean poor or working class. Just try and get an appointment to a service academy.

____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,288,644
RAC: 3,843
United States
Message 1243847 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 6:27:18 UTC - in response to Message 1243818.

Gary -- you are quite right -- although scion of wealth he did full up military service. For that matter, in this regard, JFK was similar.

My error regarding Bush I.

Though his father (like JFK's father) not only was VERY wealthy, but, shall we say had a less than stellar record in the 30's regarding choices made.

Regarding the military -- you know I think Madow might have a good point on the perils of 'all volunteer'. It has caused a separation between the military and the general population which is not good for either.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1243865 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 7:45:32 UTC - in response to Message 1243808.

So Gary, look at candidates -- seems there is something of an equal mix here

Poor/working class/military
Obama
Clinton
McCain
Reagan
McGovern
Dole

'Trust fund'
Bush II
Gore
Bush I
Kerry
Romney



That's good stuff Barry.

Pretty much rules out political beliefs on the basis of background.

That means both myself and our friends on the left, are somewhat mistaken.

* Friends on the right*

(it's been a loooong day.)
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1244213 - Posted: 10 Jun 2012, 2:25:54 UTC - in response to Message 1243865.

The Bush name is tainted no matter what you say. Dealing with Nazis is always treasonous. It's one thing to trade with them when it was legal. Grandad Bush found it lucrative to deal with them even after a US ban on trade with the 3rd reich was institute. Thats a heartwarming tale if their ever was one. Nobody wants to talk about where the Bush's made their money. Now you know
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Danged Liberals and their debates

Copyright © 2014 University of California