Nanny state: jailing the poor

[CowboyBob]

I love people who dissect posts!

Social Security will have run out by the time I'm old enough to retire because a damn democrat said "Hey, we should pay people who can't work with this too!" Which is a very socialist policy.

Social Security is a safety net so the elderly and disabled won't be living in squalor in the streets. Socialist? Debatable. And whether it will be available when you return remains to be seen. There have been doomsday predictions for decades and they never materialize. It's yet another right wing scare tactic.

What regulations?

You're kidding me with this, aren't you? Creating safety standards for the auto industry so your car doesn't disintegrate upon impact. OSHA. Child labor laws. Do some reading.

Right, because THAT expense ONLY puts a burden on the employers shoulders. It's not like the employers don't just pass that straight on to the fucking consumer.

Do you really want Americans to work for 11¢ an hour?

Do you have a concrete example of this?

What Republican has voted for education increases? Ask any Republican what they think of the NEA, Ask any educator what they think about No Child Left Behind; a massive failure of the Bush administration.

Bush was cleaning up Clinton's mess and Clinton was cleaning up H. W. Bush's mess, who was cleaning up Reagan's mess, who was cleaning up Carter's mess, and on and on and on...

What mess did Clinton leave behind? A booming economy? Bush squandered that and drove us into a depression. Why can't Republicans admit that?

 

[Jack Springer]

Jack Springer, in your experience as a bi-partisan, tell us about the last time you believed and accepted a core Democratic ideal with your big ole' open mind, steeped as it is in the spirit of compromise? Compromise should be a two-way street. Some people might see it as a dead-end. But you see it as a one way street, with no one willing to drive the other way. So when is the last time you drove down it?

Here's a stops along the highway of core Liberal ideals . . .

• Abortion on demand, for any reason
• Open borders -- everyone is welcome and you don't have to obey our laws
• Anyone can vote - doesn't mater if you're a US Citizen or not
• Redistribution of wealth through any means possible
• Reduction in funding the military
• Insincere support for gay rights
• Use of minorities for political gain

I think the only place I'd stop and look around would be "reducing the funding of the military". We net to stop being the only policeman of the world -- it's time to share that responsibility.

I have voted for Democrats in the past and suppose I'll do so again in the future. My world is not all black and white.

 

[MercuryJones]

I bumped into an interesting ordinance this last week. Passed by Democrats, it sets aesthetic standards.

Kuli, was the ordinance opposed by Republicans?

 

[BostonPirate]

Bullshit.

Rather than addressing any of the substantive content of his post, all you and Bob could do is write a bunch of crap that could be boiled down to: "But Democrats do this and Republicans do that!" It had fuck-all to do with Kuli's complaint, but that didn't stop you from ranting.

It's partisan chest-thumping, and it's unbecoming. If that's how you fly off the handle whenever someone criticizes Democrats, then it's almost an admission by default that you think the Democrats are perfect.

I would hope you're not that deluded.

what he is saying is not adding up to what he really has professed to believe.

Something is up and I think he needs to step back and think about it.

As to my belief in the dems, I have been critical of the dems at length in the past, but in a two party system during an election, it just aint gonna happen until after nov 3rd, and I am a big enough man to say that.

I am a non affiliated voter and I fight the republicans for their consistent anti
gay agenda.


we all clear on that, mr Huffy?

 

[BostonPirate]

You've yet to explain how or why this is.

He's complaining about a beautification ordinance that was passed by Democrats in his area.

You think libertarians would be in favor of these ordinances too? If so, explain why.

I think that's a hard claim to support. Libertarians are the last people to care about RV's being on someone's property. That's just not the type of thing they're inclined to legislate.

no thats not what I said.

He is talking about the lack of democratic compassion and he will be first to say that the government is not in the business of providing that.

This is a hard topic and I would prefer to tread lightly. I am fond of Kulindahr and I know things aren't easy for him right now.

 

[MercuryJones]

I'm going to guess that it wasn't (probably to my own embarrassment, but we'll see).

We all know a big group in the Republican camp is the suburban, middle class white male.

This group tends to be the whiniest, most vociferously self-absorbed, vain bunch of people on earth. They're not worried about anything but their H2's being scratched or their neighborhood looking picture perfect because they don't want to piss off their trophy wives.

Fuck 'em.

When you consider the number of Republicans who want to prohibit same sex marriage - to say nothing of those who want to criminalize homosexual sex - it's hard to take seriously any depiction of Republicans as being less intrusive in personal freedoms.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, was the ordinance opposed by Republicans?

The solitary Republican on the Council called for the matter to be studied. I have no idea whether he meant so homelessness could be looked at, or what.

what he is saying is not adding up to what he really has professed to believe.

Something is up and I think he needs to step back and think about it.

Just what in my original post had anything to do with what I, or any other people here believe? I was looking at "facts on the ground" and the apparent meaning of those facts.

The more I step back and look, the more I see Democrats on the local level being antagonistic to the poor and to free enterprise.

But this is a better response to things:

Bullshit.

Rather than addressing any of the substantive content of his post, all you and Bob could do is write a bunch of crap that could be boiled down to: "But Democrats do this and Republicans do that!" It had fuck-all to do with Kuli's complaint, but that didn't stop you from ranting.

It's partisan chest-thumping, and it's unbecoming. If that's how you fly off the handle whenever someone criticizes Democrats, then it's almost an admission by default that you think the Democrats are perfect.

I would hope you're not that deluded.

I'll just add that bankside also weighed in to try to make this a partisan matter.

All that's a symptom of the same problem: appearances matter more than people, in this case political appearances -- one party has to be made to look better than the other(s).

And while that game is being played, I could have earned $800 this week -- except that Democrats here have us "safety" ordinances and licensing requirements that boil down to "those already rich can do business, the rest of you are slaves".

 

[bankside]

You've got to be kidding me. You framed the issue in a partisan way. You need to own your own partisanship. Or were you not aware that a libertarian can also be a partisan.

The oldest smear in the book to tar someone who merely disagrees with you (or even agrees only with a nuanced version of your argument) as "simply a partisan."

Good luck to you.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Facts are partisan?

Whoa.

 

[BostonPirate]

I wish you would reread this thread kulindahr and do a bit of soul searching