quote Originally posted by troyboy: A "+" for you.

I understand why you posted. It just seemed incomplete.

As I have been saying since Tuesday night... America has changed, and I believe it has changed irrepirably.

Americans have forgone their daring aggressive roots, and accepted a more mundane and apathetic lifestyle. In other words, people voted because they wanted security in failure rather than success in opportunity.

The American dream is no longer America's...

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Americans have forgone their daring aggressive roots, and accepted a more mundane and apathetic lifestyle. In other words, people voted because they wanted security in failure rather than success in opportunity. The American dream is no longer America's...

THAT should be a bumper sticker !!!!!

quote Originally posted by PURPLE REIGN: Politics or not, this is just generally true all the way around the horn

Wow that's how it is in your neck of the woods? boy oh boy I'm glad I live in the ghetto.

quote Originally posted by PURPLE REIGN: THAT should be a bumper sticker !!!!!

Thank you... I wish I could be happy about saying something catchy, but unfortunately the have-nots now outnumber the haves in America. What makes this most disturbing is that the policies for which they fight, and defend, are the very policies which have put them in the very position for which they now find themselves. These are the same policies which will continue to swell the ranks of the unemployed and the entitlement dependent. I am not all-together sure that we will ever have the capacity to recover from this.

While America will most certainly always exist, I fear that we have sealed our fate to an uninspiring and irrellevant existence in this world.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Thank you... I wish I could be happy about saying something catchy, but unfortunately the have-nots now outnumber the haves in America. What makes this most disturbing is that the policies for which they fight, and defend, are the very policies which have put them in the very position for which they now find themselves. These are the same policies which will continue to swell the ranks of the unemployed and the entitlement dependent. I am not all-together sure that we will ever have the capacity to recover from this. While America will most certainly always exist, I fear that we have sealed our fate to an uninspiring and irrellevant existence in this world.

The "have-nots" have always outnumbered the "haves" in America. Now it's a problem because it's harder for you to ignore them. :shrug: So Roger is out, what's your escape plan?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I see no agenda there. If there is a factual error, point it out and we can discuss it. If not, then the error is wholly in your perception.

I never said you made an error, if I did point that out and we can discuss it.



Brad

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: As I have been saying since Tuesday night... America has changed, and I believe it has changed irrepirably. Americans have forgone their daring aggressive roots, and accepted a more mundane and apathetic lifestyle. In other words, people voted because they wanted security in failure rather than success in opportunity. The American dream is no longer America's...

Todd, instead of imitating Chicken Little, perhaps its time for you and other Americans to start pulling together rather than focussing on tearing each other down.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-08-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Todd, instead of imitating Chicken Little, perhaps its time for you and other Americans to start pulling together rather than focussing on tearing each other down.

Yeah, if it helps, other redshirts are looking at trying to do it. Be one of the cool kids man, it's going to be popular.... Seriously if this becomes the stance of the Republicans, maybe we can get things done (provided the Democrats work at it as well). Although the contradiction is pretty funny.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews....ite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

quote Updated 6 p.m. ET - Republicans' efforts to undo President Barack Obama's health care reform law appear to have come to an end, as House Speaker John Boehner described it Thursday as the "law of the land." In an interview with ABC News, the nation's top elected Republican seemed to indicate that Congress wouldn't engage in the type of repeated repeal votes the way it had in the past two years. Boehner's office provided a transcript of the exchange: SAWYER: A couple of other questions about the agenda now. You have said next year that you would repeal the healthcare vote. That's still your mission? BOEHNER: Well, I think the election changes that. It's pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare is the law of the land. I think there are parts of the healthcare law that are gonna be very difficult to implement. And very expensive. And as the time when we're tryin' to find a way to create a path toward a balanced budget everything has to be on the table. SAWYER: But you won't be spending the time next year trying to repeal Obamacare? BOEHNER: There certainly may be parts of it that we believe-- need to be changed. We may do that. No decisions at this point. The speaker's pronouncement, if nothing else, signifies a pivot away from Republicans' efforts to showcase for conservatives their doggedness in looking to repeal "Obamacare." It's also a recognation that the 2009-2010 health care law that came to define Obama's first term in office -- and propel Republicans to a majority in the House -- is here to stay. A spokesman for Boehner sought to clarify the speaker's comments. "While ObamaCare is the law of the land, it is costing us jobs and threatening our health care," said Kevin Smith, the speaker's communications director. "Speaker Boehner and House Republicans remain committed to repealing the law, and he said in the interview it would be on the table." The Supreme Court's summer 2012 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law disarmed conservatives of one of their best possible chances of defeating the health care law once and for all. And Mitt Romney's loss on Tuesday meant that Republicans won't have in the White House a president that could severely limit the scope of the law before its key provisions begin to take effect in 2014.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 11-08-2012).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: The "have-nots" have always outnumbered the "haves" in America. Now it's a problem because it's harder for you to ignore them. :shrug: So Roger is out, what's your escape plan?

You have a jaded view of American history if you believe it has always been that way. May I assume you are referring to 1% vs 99%? I was referring to welfare vs non-welfare families.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You have a jaded view of American history if you believe it has always been that way. May I assume you are referring to 1% vs 99%? I was referring to welfare vs non-welfare families.

Well, next time be more specific. It's always been that way throughout history. People with power and means are ALWAYS outnumbered by people without.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Well, next time be more specific. It's always been that way throughout history. People with power and means are ALWAYS outnumbered by people without.

Let's talk about this... I clearly thought welfare vs non-welfare; however, you immediately interpreted this as being wealthy vs non-wealthy... 1% vs 99%. May I ask what caused your thought to be directed in this way? Do you normally consider situations in terms of what is fair and what is not? Does it bother you when individuals have money and do you perhaps feel it's unfair when they didn't earn it themselves?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Let's talk about this... I clearly thought welfare vs non-welfare; however, you immediately interpreted this as being wealthy vs non-wealthy... 1% vs 99%. May I ask what caused your thought to be directed in this way? Do you normally consider situations in terms of what is fair and what is not? Does it bother you when individuals have money and do you perhaps feel it's unfair when they didn't earn it themselves?

Well, in my experience the haves v/s have-nots discussion usually refers to economical comparisons. People with wealth, power, opportunity, etc usually guard it and try to keep it for themselves and people like them. I didn't comment on the fairness of things. Life isn't fair, and you can't make it be unless you're able to change human nature. It bothers me when people horde and guard wealth, yes. It bothers me if I witness someone (individual or group) specifically deny others the opportunity by oppressing them in some way. If the system is open to anyone willing to put forth the effort to succeed, then great. Unfortunately the barrier to entry isn't always open to everyone. We do have people that think they're entitled, on both sides of the spectrum. Sometimes things feel unfair when I see a picture of Paris Hilton that's for sure. The are people out there who would contribute much more to society than she will ever even dream of, and they may suffer while she lives in excess only because she was born into the right family.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 11-08-2012).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: ...

Maybe it was the phone conversation a few weeks back, but you have been on my radar as of late. I just wanted to let the forum know that you have a few different views than I, but I can respect that. What you have been telling us lately does make sense, but not all of us can see that. So, I am just letting you know, publicly, that you are a fine American Sir. I had given you a plus rating a while back, and as of late, that is only more secured. Views notwithstanding. Keep on Brother...

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Maybe it was the phone conversation a few weeks back, but you have been on my radar as of late. I just wanted to let the forum know that you have a few different views than I, but I can respect that. What you have been telling us lately does make sense, but not all of us can see that. So, I am just letting you know, publicly, that you are a fine American Sir. I had given you a plus rating a while back, and as of late, that is only more secured. Views notwithstanding. Keep on Brother...

Thanks Tony. That actually means a lot.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Well, in my experience the haves v/s have-nots discussion usually refers to economical comparisons. People with wealth, power, opportunity, etc usually guard it and try to keep it for themselves and people like them. I didn't comment on the fairness of things. Life isn't fair, and you can't make it be unless you're able to change human nature. It bothers me when people horde and guard wealth, yes. It bothers me if I witness someone (individual or group) specifically deny others the opportunity by oppressing them in some way. If the system is open to anyone willing to put forth the effort to succeed, then great. Unfortunately the barrier to entry isn't always open to everyone. We do have people that think they're entitled, on both sides of the spectrum. Sometimes things feel unfair when I see a picture of Paris Hilton that's for sure. The are people out there who would contribute much more to society than she will ever even dream of, and they may suffer while she lives in excess only because she was born into the right family.

Do you have some examples of an individual or group denying others equal opportunity?

Would this be similar in theory to the treatment I get when I go to the junkyard? eg: I dress as if in poverty and I get exceptional prices on car parts, but when I dress casually, I am charged in exorbance.

Without being sarcastic, condescending, or berating, I want to know what it is about Paris Hilton's wealth specifically that upsets you the most? Is it that she does not understand the struggles of others and by that simple conclusion it makes it unfair, or more simply that she has more wealth with less effort?

Do you believe that she hoards wealth, or would you say that she spends it frivilously on the many products and assets that she purchases, many of which are made in America?

What do you beleive is the right course of action that the government should take to rectify this if you see her wealth as a problem?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Do you have some examples of an individual or group denying others equal opportunity? Would this be similar in theory to the treatment I get when I go to the junkyard? eg: I dress as if in poverty and I get exceptional prices on car parts, but when I dress casually, I am charged in exorbance. Without being sarcastic, condescending, or berating, I want to know what it is about Paris Hilton's wealth specifically that upsets you the most? Is it that she does not understand the struggles of others and by that simple conclusion it makes it unfair, or more simply that she has more wealth with less effort? Do you believe that she hoards wealth, or would you say that she spends it frivilously on the many products and assets that she purchases, many of which are made in America? What do you beleive is the right course of action that the government should take to rectify this if you see her wealth as a problem?

You really want to take it to that level in this thread? I don't see being willing to spend the time it would take to go into that level of detail about my perception at the moment. Paris Hilton can be an annoyance, I don't sit around and obsess about her or her wealth. That said it's a sad sign of our society that someone who's greatest contributions have been a reality tv show and a sex tape, is not only in the "haves" category, but will be no matter what she does. While people that are out trying to make a real difference in this world and give more of themselves than they can afford may be in the "have-nots" category regardless of their actions.

I fully understand where you're trying to lead this Todd, and I'm sorry but I'm going to have to deny you the opportunity to find the opening you're looking for. I have a fundamental disagreement with many of the things our society does and holds to, but blaming the government for them all isn't realistic. Government is yet another product of our society, and can't be fixed while our foundation is so flawed by our nature. All this said, an online forum isn't the optimal place for a discussion of this depth, mainly because I simply don't have the time to articulate my thoughts in a way that would do them justice.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 11-08-2012).]

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: If misspelling a word made you "uneducated" then we would all be riding the short bus here. Brad

No, but you HAVE to appreciate the irony when the very statement Toddster used a misspelling in was directly related to his complaint about the lack of intelligence of others.

quote Originally posted by troyboy: Wow this thread has some PFF members showing their true colors, I know I will get even more " - " 's for posting in this thread but I don't give a $hit. If some of you see this Obama voting minority at the 30th how will you greet me? I'm black, collage educated, a labor friendly businessman , a loving father with two children with fully funded collage accounts, and a mid six figure income. The way SOME of you talk I would expect to see you running down to the Kmart white sheet sale. America's changing for better or worst get over it already , unless your Native American you can always go back to your home land.

We only have one openly racist person on this forum that I know of, and I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of his posts, so why did you bring up racial differences and "white sheet[s]"? This is why people say Democrats scream racist when they don't get their way.

Personally, I disagree with many parts of this thread. But this comment really bothered me.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: You really want to take it to that level in this thread? I don't see being willing to spend the time it would take to go into that level of detail about my perception at the moment. Paris Hilton can be an annoyance, I don't sit around and obsess about her or her wealth. That said it's a sad sign of our society that someone who's greatest contributions have been a reality tv show and a sex tape, is not only in the "haves" category, but will be no matter what she does. While people that are out trying to make a real difference in this world and give more of themselves than they can afford may be in the "have-nots" category regardless of their actions. I fully understand where you're trying to lead this Todd, and I'm sorry but I'm going to have to deny you the opportunity to find the opening you're looking for. I have a fundamental disagreement with many of the things our society does and holds to, but blaming the government for them all isn't realistic. Government is yet another product of our society, and can't be fixed while our foundation is so flawed by our nature. All this said, an online forum isn't the optimal place for a discussion of this depth, mainly because I simply don't have the time to articulate my thoughts in a way that would do them justice.

I fail to see exactly what the opening is you're referring to. What do you think it is that I'm waiting for, and what do you think is my intended response?

While I would never attempt to compare the low points in my life to that of a poor Egyptian living in a mud hut in Cairo, I will say that nothing has ever come easy to me. I have had opportunities afford to me by the hard work of my parents; decent schools, proper clothing, and any academic hobby for which I chose to pursue; however, my career is my own making. My college education's tuition, my hard work, my failures... are all mine. At no point in my life have I ever looked at Paris Hilton with envy or jealousy.

I mean this with the utmost respect and seriousness, but I want in earnest to understand what makes you feel this way, and what it is that I am lacking which disallows me to feel this way. Were you taught this, or was it learned? I have never thought to compare myself, or measure myself, to failures such as Paris Hilton, why should you?

quote Originally posted by theBDub: We only have one openly racist person on this forum that I know of, and I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of his posts, so why did you bring up racial differences and "white sheet[s]"? This is why people say Democrats scream racist when they don't get their way. Personally, I disagree with many parts of this thread. But this comment really bothered me.

Maybe only one person that openly admits to it but more than one person has made racially derogatory remarks just in this thread. Maybe you didn't notice because you don't relate to the groups being singled out.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Maybe only one person that openly admits to it but more than one person has made racially derogatory remarks just in this thread. Maybe you didn't notice because you don't relate to the groups being singled out.

I reread through the thread and you're right, I hadn't read this entire thread in awhile before commenting and only remember loafer being racist.. Thanks for correcting me. My bad.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Medicare treats all enrollees the same, regardless of how (or if) they vote. And it certainly isn't Democrats proposing fundamental changes to the program, which presents the Democrats with the perfect opportunity to characterize them as a change to "less or none." Until specific changes are proposed and discussed it's impossible to tell which interpretation is correct.

Medicare treats all enrollees the same, regardless of how (or if) they vote. (I believe that to be true - we agree)


The first step (if I may oversimplify) is to admit these programs, no matter how much they are needed, do not provide them with enough resources to
(Seniors) Enjoy the well earned retirement from decades of hard work and contribution they have made to our world
(Disabled) Overcome their circumstance and regain their power to continue establishing the life they had in mind
(Welfare) Rise up above the gutter of poverty and become more than society has written them off to be
(Unemployed) Transition from a job (or lost job) to a career or from employment to a Business Owner

I see programs. I see real people who genuinely need help. As good as we want to believe these programs to be, the only thing we can honestly say is that our heart was in the right place. Fundamental changes are only bad if they make the situation worse or merely touch up the paint, shine the brass, and clean the windows.

If we want to provide something of worth and value or just worthy of the values we claim to uphold, should we not consider changes (fundamental or Theoretical) on their merit instead of dismissing ideas on the basis of the party identification of the person proposing it.

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 11-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: I fully understand where you're trying to lead this Todd, and I'm sorry but I'm going to have to deny you the opportunity to find the opening you're looking for. I have a fundamental disagreement with many of the things our society does and holds to, but blaming the government for them all isn't realistic. Government is yet another product of our society, and can't be fixed while our foundation is so flawed by our nature. All this said, an online forum isn't the optimal place for a discussion of this depth, mainly because I simply don't have the time to articulate my thoughts in a way that would do them justice.

This is why we on this forum dont seem to get anywhere and just surface argue. This is also why I dont understand the viewpoint you seem to have. It cannot be explained. If you dont want to get into detail with anyone then dont. But arguing about only surface material, and not fundamentals, principles or reasons is meaningless. IMO

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: This is why we on this forum dont seem to get anywhere and just surface argue. This is also why I dont understand the viewpoint you seem to have. It cannot be explained. If you dont want to get into detail with anyone then dont. But arguing about only surface material, and not fundamentals, principles or reasons is meaningless. IMO

I'm not going to change Todd's mind. He has his viewpoint, and it's based off of his prejudices and experiences. I can say being prejudiced towards X is wrong and that we should stop what we're doing as a people. This doesn't mean we have to get into a long drawn out discussion about our development and experiences in general, as that's not something easily done on the net, and knowing I'm not going to be able to change Todd's mind about these things would be even more of a waste of my time (we're all here wasting time but I do have a limit). If someone doesn't understand that hatred isn't healthy or productive then they're not going to understand the back-story to why either. Todd is attempting to analyze me and my emotions, whether it is for a way to find an argument against me, or to genuinely try to understand why I'm saying what I am. This said, his questions aren't really relevant to the points I've made, and I can say with complete confidence that he's not looking to change his thinking, so why would I invest myself in this way?

You want an example, I've been talking about how the hardcore Republicans have been acting on here and how their behavior is counter-productive. I threw Paris Hilton's name out there as a casual reference when he asked me if I had resentment of people that have money but didn't earn it. The reference was a comment about society in general and how someone with no serious offering to society can have more "value" than someone who genuinely contributes. So, instead of speaking to the spirit of the message, he wants to get into how I feel about Paris Hilton and ask whether or not the government should step in and do something about her. Really? So instead of speaking to the greater message I'm trying to make, let's focus on the Paris Hilton thing. Yeah, ok because THAT'S the most important thing I said. This is what the politicians are doing and how is it working out for all of us?

If someone wants to genuinely know and discuss my viewpoint, I'm right here in the open. I'm not going to get into those depths unless someone actually wants to know, and not just find another way to latch on to something irrelevant in the conversation to use as a debatable point.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: I'm not going to change Todd's mind. He has his viewpoint, and it's based off of his prejudices and experiences. I can say being prejudiced towards X is wrong and that we should stop what we're doing as a people. This doesn't mean we have to get into a long drawn out discussion about our development and experiences in general, as that's not something easily done on the net, and knowing I'm not going to be able to change Todd's mind about these things would be even more of a waste of my time (we're all here wasting time but I do have a limit). If someone doesn't understand that hatred isn't healthy or productive then they're not going to understand the back-story to why either. Todd is attempting to analyze me and my emotions, whether it is for a way to find an argument against me, or to genuinely try to understand why I'm saying what I am. This said, his questions aren't really relevant to the points I've made, and I can say with complete confidence that he's not looking to change his thinking, so why would I invest myself in this way? You want an example, I've been talking about how the hardcore Republicans have been acting on here and how their behavior is counter-productive. If someone wants to genuinely know and discuss my viewpoint, I'm right here in the open. I'm not going to get into those depths unless someone actually wants to know, and not just find another way to latch on to something irrelevant in the conversation to use as a debatable point.

I wouldnt focus on the prejudices you think cannot be changed, but instead argue your point thru what they believe is important.
But I think this hits on a point.
I notice in these threads the people arguing from what appears to be your point of view only seem to focus on why to discredit the other side. Why to walk away dismissing them. Sure this happens on both "Sides" all year long. I'm just saying if we stopped doing that maybe we'd accomplish something. The cool thing is you are not only communicating with him, but anyone who reads it.

You may believe they want their party to change their stances in order to get elected, many of them believe they are for what is right. Letting go of what is right, letting go of what leaves Americans with the most freedom to succeed (in their eyes) is not an acceptable means to a supposed end.

My point I suppose is to all who want to argue this stuff is if they are leading you somewhere go there the way you want to, be sincere. Or turn it in a direction that actually addresses theri concerns but on your terms.

I dont know. I'm bouncing around trying to explain myself.
Anyway. i noticed my posts go unanswered alot. It could be because they are not always about the surface argument that is easy to counter. Or it could be I'm way off base OH well.

Oh, and to clarify Todd I'm not obtuse. I understand the likelihood that you were trying to correlate what I said about Paris Hilton to other people getting funds they didn't earn and to the government stopping the bleeding. However, it was a bad comparison and I didn't really want to get involved in that partiucular discussion when I was talking about behavior and the need to hurt instead of help. I understand the fiscal conservative portion of the Republican ideology. It doesn't excuse the behavior, or the other baggage.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Cliff... I don't want to believe that the American people voted because they wanted more socialism, but I think you're right. Is there anyone here who would disagree with this? Is there anyone here who voted for Obama and does not support socialism?

I'll bite. First off, I did not vote Obama, nor do I like Obama. The problem is that I also disliked Romney. And herein lies the problem - people voted for Obama because Romney was severely disliked by many. They did not trust him. His positions frequently changed during his campaign. He didn't provide clear guidance how his policies would simultaneously reduce the deficit and reduce tax burdens. (The rhetoric that lowing taxes increases revenues, as I've said before, doesn't work - and historically, it never has.)

Romney's pledge to dramatically increase military spending, for one, virtually guaranteed that either the deficit would explode, or other forms of government spending would be gutted. IMO, the military is already far bigger than it needs to be and spending even more on it is crazy. Since entitlements are naturally very difficult to cut, I believe discretionary spending would have gone first - the stuff that government SHOULD be doing because it's not profitable for private companies to do it, such as a science laboratory or a space telescope.

Obamacare is nowhere near perfect but the system we had is broken. It does not work. People are using the ER because they are uninsured - the most expensive type of care available - and unable to pay. People losing everything because they get sick and cannot work, and many employers don't offer disability coverage. It tells me something, IMO, that the people I know in the medical field all support Obamacare, despite indications that their net pay will fall, because they see how destructive the current system is.

It also tells me something that Mitt passed the equivalent for his home state.

Don't get me wrong, Obama scares me too. I'm just pointing out some of his policies that were better than Romney's.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: I know you weren't addressing me, but I know I'm not changing opinions when posting in a political thread on PFF. The only reason I do it is to see what makes other people tick - it's an educational experience, to say the least, to find out how others think.

And your choice of words supports your statement. It's such a simple task to ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish then assess whether or not your words are designed to accomplish this result. Unfortunately, not many people do it. They react emotionally or they are doing it but only at a subconscious level. That's why what words one chooses to use can tell more than what they're saying. If the words or tone are threatening but they're talking about peace, you know there's a disconnect between their feelings and what they're saying. This can suggest a lie or a hidden truth, etc. I've seen you get into it with people but I've seen you ask questions that were designed to do more than further an argument as well.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 11-09-2012).]