The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

A Question for you Pro-Heathcare Reformers

Tea Party protesters are grassroots private citizen protesters, NickCole. The US Senate is part of an elite society from which blacks have been historically been excluded. The two are not comparable at all.


The Democratic side of the Senate that Democrats chose to vote into office versus a conservative tea party protest where, as I proved earlier, many blacks choose to join in and clearly feel comfortable.

My point stands: the percentage of blacks or whites in a group is not necessarily indicative of that group's prevailing racial attitude.
 
the difference between the slip between the cup and the lip is not as great

as the difference between defining elected and excluded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantics whores create a good percentage of the miscommunication in the world...jmpo
 
Obviously there's not much reliable data about teabaggers, but CNN conducted a poll in February and found that, of the teabaggers interviewed:

60% were male.

80% were white, 10% latino, 2% black. (Considering blacks make up 13-14% of US population, and latinos make up 14-15%, blacks are significantly under-represented. But a 20% non-white representation is certainly not "monolithically" white.)

50% were from rural areas.

52% described themselves as Independent, 44% as Republican.

84% were Christian/Catholic.

20% were under 30 years old (which is proportionate to population, so under-30s were reliably represented.)

Note the link is a PDF download, not a web page:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf
 
Now added to prejudice against blacks who choose to join the tea party movement we get another ObamaDem chiming in his prejudice against older Americans.

Yes We Can.
 
The Democratic side of the Senate that Democrats chose to vote into office versus a conservative tea party protest where, as I proved earlier, many blacks choose to join in and clearly feel comfortable.

My point stands: the percentage of blacks or whites in a group is not necessarily indicative of that group's prevailing racial attitude.

The point is quite sound.

Now added to prejudice against blacks who choose to join the tea party movement we get another ObamaDem chiming in his prejudice against older Americans.

Huh? :confused:
 
Listen. There is no need to even beg the question OP. It is now the law of the land. You will pay. And you can complain. But take the bitching about the new laws to the therapist.


Sadly, you're right.

Complaining to a therapist will be no less effective than to an elected official because it's done now. And by "done" I don't mean health care reform, I mean the health care industries winning. ObamaCare brings regulatory capture between the health care industry and the Federal government to completion.

Regulatory capture is a term used to refer to situations in which a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. ... For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture


This piece in Harper's put it in perspective:

The story of capture is repeated again and again, in industry after industry, whether it is the agricultural combinations creating an impenetrable system of subsidies, or television and radio broadcasters monopolizing public airwaves for private profit, or the entire financial sector conjuring perilous fortunes from the legislative void. The real battle in Washington is seldom between conservatives and liberals or the right and the left or “red America” and “blue America.” It is nearly always a more local contest, over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.

And so it is with health-care reform. The debate in Washington this fall ought to have been about why the United States has the worst health-care system in the developed world, why Americans pay twice the Western average to maintain that system, and what fundamental changes are needed to make the system better serve us. ... The health-care industry has captured the regulatory process, and it has used that capture to eliminate any real competition, whether from the government, in the form of a single-payer system, or from new and more efficient competitors in the private sector who might have the audacity to offer a better product at a better price. ...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740


Look ahead - it is 2016, the middle of an election season and Presidential race. Democrats are sellling their health care reform accomplishment and Republicans have been paid off by the stakeholder in the health care industry. Who is going blow the whistle on health insurance companies not complying with the great Dem achievement? Good luck with that one.
 
I don't know about that one, Lovewill.

I don't EVER underestimate the propaganda machine of the Republican Party. After all, they have people poorer than dirt, so brainwashed that they vote against their very own interests. THAT's power of persuasion. It never ceases to amaze me.

I would not be surprised to see repeal.

The Democrats don't?

They voted against their own interests with Obama -- he's extended the Bush police state, the very thing he campaigned against. I'm at this point not entirely certain he's much better than McCain -- but at least we knew ahead of time that McCain wasn't a fan of the Bill of Rights; Obama had us fooled.
 
Johanne made an interesting statement a short while ago about dirt poor dumb

republicans that will even vote against their own best interests...Why aren't

his people actively soliciting them?

Oh...OH they are? Never mind then, they just haven't been to my neighborhood yet I guess..
 
I don't think so, Kulindahr.

You have to remember that there hasn't been a real Democrat in office since Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton was a quasi-Democrat who did raise taxes on the rich, but also drastically cut welfare benefits and bought into the deregulation bandwagon, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagel Act in 1999.

You have to ask yourself: if you're poor, what are your needs? A decent living wage, health care, the cost-of-living, etc—direct needs. The abstract stuff, such as freedom to own a gun, and freedom against regulations, the right-to-work (LOL!), aren't really so important on a day-to-day basis, but the Republican Party has brainwashed the poor white trash into thinking that they ARE.

Poor Republicans are like lemmings, in my opinion.

Plainly you don't know much about being poor. Freedom against regulations, right to work, and yes, owning a gun are important day-to-day issues, because such things determine whether you can afford a place to live, have a job to get the money to afford it, and be able to keep what you've worked so hard for.

I've lived in a couple of inner city/slum places, and believe me: the people who didn't have to keep buying the same things over and over because someone stole them were the ones with NRA stickers on their doors. Criminals were smarter than to go into a house with that label; they want the people who depend on the nanny state and thus can't defend themselves. Anti-gun politicians are friends of criminals and enemies of the poor, and where I've lived, everyone knew that -- not in any theoretical way, but in a down-to-earth survival type of way. It has nothing to do with brainwashing; it has everything to do with reality.

As for the "poor white trash" out in the countryside, well, in two places I've lived there were prison escapes by inmates known to shoot people for the heck of it. You'd better believe that everyone big enough to use a firearm was armed until those cons were caught, and nobody gave a shit about the "be a victim" rules or regulations. Sitting up watching over your little kids or brothers and sisters while the older folks are out on hilltops with hunting scopes watching for the bastards the radio has proclaimed to be "armed and dangerous" is an experience that drives home the reality that government promises of safety are about as useful as the pages in a manual which state "Blank Page" -- or less; those can be used to start a fire or as toilet paper.

You made a list of things like "a decent living wage". What you don't realize is that your first list and your second list belong together.
 
Kuli,

Until told differently, I consider you a friend. We may not always see eye to eye

but I always respect your opinion, Sadly, on your response to Johann above...I

have lived it and am 200% in agreement with you.

Sometimes reality slurps.
 
Kuli,

Until told differently, I consider you a friend. We may not always see eye to eye

but I always respect your opinion, Sadly, on your response to Johann above...I

have lived it and am 200% in agreement with you.

Sometimes reality slurps.

I'm on the verge of possibly going back to living it.
 
I don't think so, Kulindahr.

You have to remember that there hasn't been a real Democrat in office since Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton was a quasi-Democrat who did raise taxes on the rich, but also drastically cut welfare benefits and bought into the deregulation bandwagon, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagel Act in 1999.


This so wrongly characterizes Bill Clinton and what he did, and shows what I mean when I say Democrats have changed.

First of all, yes he raised taxes on the top 1.2% of taxpayers. And at the same time he lowered taxes for millions of low income workers AND substantively expanded the earned income credit for the working class, in addition to lowering taxes for most small businesses. He didn't simply "drastically cut welfare benefits," he created an environment that made working more advantageous than collecting welfare. Not only did the rich get richer and the government collect record surpluses, we had the lowest unemployment since the early 70s, record low poverty rates overall and, relevant to your welfare comment, record low poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly. Blacks prospered better with Clinton as President than they'd ever before, and tons better than they're doing with Obama as President as they slip farther behind in this "jobless recovery" faster than any other group.

Democratic principles support the notion of welfare only in that it is a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens, but living off charity is not a Democratic principle. Bill Clinton, by reforming the welfare system (working with Republicans) and fighting hard to get bold good economic legislation passed, was governing with proud Democratic principles, helping those who lived in poverty get jobs and receive tax credits that helped raise them out of poverty.

It's also worth noting that after HillaryCare failed, Hillary Clinton worked with Ted Kennedy and Oren Hatch to get CHIP passed, which, though only for children, is what health care reform should be like - it guarantees health coverage for children of families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid but unable to buy private insurance because of pre-existing conditions or not enough money.

These kinds of policies and programs characterizes Bill Clinton as a principled Democrat, not quasi-Democrat, who actually led legislation that made people's lives better. It's a shame that so many Democrats, including Barack Obama, dismiss Clinton's accomplishments rather than learning from them and supporting policies and legislation today that could be as effective as Clinton's were in the 90s.
 
Holy Shit Nick....

Don't becloud the issues with such mundane garbage as verifiable facts and statistics.

You need to learn to be a forward thinker and planner not an obfuscator of the new age U.S. of A. Leadership Team.

The Truth...Justice and the American Way Party has only your
best interests cradled to Her Bosom. Wake up and smell the chicory man (old style coffee has too much caffeine and is not good for you....Nannie has spoken)



(oh double shit, so many people say they can't understand my posts...you do realize that this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek I hope)

 
Interesting.

Not too far back, we were in a position where thirty-two states had called for a constitutional convention, but an open one. I'm not even certain that once called, such a convention could be limited in any way. It could rearrange the Constitution to put the Bill of Rights first, add another branch of government, put entitlement programs in the text, or anything else.

The first such convention was a risky enough thing, and they had a far better educated public in terms of the issues of liberty than we do. How could we find delegates today who aren't statists willing to officially make us the property we're already treated as?
 
Back
Top