(04-10-2020, 06:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Is it true?  How much of the small government ideal is based on Reagan’s imaginary welfare queen?  If so, would a really pithy insult wake the bigot up?  Do insults hurt bigots?  Or do insults just slide right off, as they come from the other side?

(04-10-2020, 05:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-10-2020, 04:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Because, my buddy Classic, there are things more important than just money and who subsidizes who. There you go again, proving your pro-white orientation. Why should we not call that racist? You anti-welfare trickle-downers just want to stop your money from going to black people. That's perfectly clear. But that doesn't change the fact that we blues subsidize you reds by quite a lot, because you reds fail to vote for enough taxes to take responsibility for your problems, and you are so hung up on the military that you insist that most US bases be located there so you can get the pork for that. We blues care about more things than that, and we bitch at you because you block all needed action by the government because you hold that government is the problem as your avatar Reagan said. And that's just because you don't want to give your tax money to black people.

OK. Whatever. You try surviving without money. Do you have any idea how much money we are losing/spending right now to keep a relatively small portion of this country alive? Who subsidizes who is what this is all about and as long as the clueless Democrats think/believe we're the ones paying for it they go along but if they do too then look at what happened with Bernie. Plenty of white slugs and leaches and cons who are white in the country.  You should know that because I think you're probably one of them. You've given me plenty of signs. I hope that you don't think they're only minorities because that makes you a racist which you could be by the way you tend to divert. As I mentioned before, white or black or brown and whether you have a dick or a twat doesn't matter to me. I'd get rid of all of them. I represent TRUE equality and blind justice that you guys are always preaching about these days. You blues care about yourselves and that's about it. Ain't what we think, it's what you, Dave, PB, Bob and Rachel thinks/feels that's all that matters. I'm just a reminder of how important liberals are in the greater scheme of things these days.

(04-10-2020, 08:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep. Lots of insults. So, why are you preaching to me about it when you are guilty of doing it yourself. You have two types of insults. Insults that are deserved or warranted and those that are not.  You shouldn't preach to me about bigots or bigotry either. You see, bigots call people that they don't know and have never met racists. Guess what, you're guilty of doing it. One can a liberal and a bigot at the same time. I see them a lot. Don't believe me, watch The View. I'm sure you will agree with the liberal bigots and disagree with the one telling them they're wrong. We have a lot of people on welfare in this country. We see them every day in every community and we are spending a shitload of money on them, illegals and those with refugee. I call it the welfare state. Others call it the nanny state. If we didn't, the Democrats wouldn't be able to win an election this country. The bulk them are a single women with kids who have boyfriends instead of husbands. Like I've said, I've been around more than you. You see, if you don't take the time to get to know a lot of people then you end up pretty clueless like your politicians and your people like Rachel Maddow. You do know that Rachel is pretty clueless because she doesn't take the time to talk to other people than her people line up for her show.

(04-10-2020, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The strange thing is that I have always thought I might be able to change peoples beliefs with a logical discussion or pointing toward obvious reality. It was not a workable idea. People don't change their beliefs because of what I say very often. It has happened, I think, but you can't make a person drink the water after leading them to it.

Bill says he's an agnostic who believes in evolution and the big bang, and Coca Puff says he believes God created the world in 6 days and that Jesus is his savior. I don't agree with either side, at least not entirely, but how can I change these beliefs they hold?

Classic Xer believes that democrats create dependency and are leaches. Trickle-down economics, as I call that general ideology. Reagan's imaginary welfare queen. It has lots of believers. Why do I think I can change his mind by arguing with him? I know I can't. It's just a mental exercize, and at the very most informative for others who might read it. Even that is unlikely.

It works the other way more often. I make mistakes in my thoughts and ideas, sometimes, and I learn things from others, sometimes, because there's a lot I don't know, especially on the more factual level.

(04-11-2020, 12:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-10-2020, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The strange thing is that I have always thought I might be able to change peoples beliefs with a logical discussion or pointing toward obvious reality. It was not a workable idea. People don't change their beliefs because of what I say very often. It has happened, I think, but you can't make a person drink the water after leading them to it.

Bill says he's an agnostic who believes in evolution and the big bang, and Coca Puff says he believes God created the world in 6 days and that Jesus is his savior. I don't agree with either side, at least not entirely, but how can I change these beliefs they hold?

Classic Xer believes that democrats create dependency and are leaches. Trickle-down economics, as I call that general ideology. Reagan's imaginary welfare queen. It has lots of believers. Why do I think I can change his mind by arguing with him? I know I can't. It's just a mental exercize, and at the very most informative for others who might read it. Even that is unlikely.

It works the other way more often. I make mistakes in my thoughts and ideas, sometimes, and I learn things from others, sometimes, because there's a lot I don't know, especially on the more factual level.

I'm a deist who is more on the side of creation considering we aren't monkey's as science has now proven without a doubt. If liberals want to stick with Darwin's Theory of Evolution until the day they die by all means be my guest. So, how many climate changes has mankind, or humanity as we call it today, been through since it's existence. I'd say quite a few. Do you know what your problem is, you spend to much time hanging  with clueless people and focusing on recruiting or taking advantage of clueless or desperate people. You're right about one thing, sooner or later the blues are going to find themselves being stuck in one bathtub or state that is completely separated from the United States.

(04-10-2020, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The strange thing is that I have always thought I might be able to change peoples beliefs with a logical discussion or pointing toward obvious reality. It was not a workable idea. People don't change their beliefs because of what I say very often. It has happened, I think, but you can't make a person drink the water after leading them to it.

Quote:Bill says he's an agnostic who believes in evolution and the big bang, and Coca Puff says he believes God created the world in 6 days and that Jesus is his savior. I don't agree with either side, at least not entirely, but how can I change these beliefs they hold?

Quote:Classic Xer believes that democrats create dependency and are leaches. Trickle-down economics, as I call that general ideology. Reagan's imaginary welfare queen. It has lots of believers. Why do I think I can change his mind by arguing with him? I know I can't. It's just a mental exercise, and at the very most informative for others who might read it. Even that is unlikely.

Quote:It works the other way more often. I make mistakes in my thoughts and ideas, sometimes, and I learn things from others, sometimes, because there's a lot I don't know, especially on the more factual level.

(04-10-2020, 11:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Rachel Maddow’s first guest tonight was an ordinary nurse from Kanas.  He is in New York now, helping out in a hospital there, because if he didn’t go, who would?  His job is among other things to tie on the toe tags and to carry the body to the refrigerated truck.  You see, he is the biggest one on his floor.  He talked a bit about his father that stayed at home.  He used to sit like a lump and watch TV.  Now that the government has asked for him to stay home, he finds all sorts of hobbies and other excuses to get in the car and socialize.  You can guess his son’s opinion of that.

This is not unusual in Rachel’s guests.  Some give reports from the front lines.  There are reasons why the stay at home orders are in place.  Most often, the guests are the head of the emergency departments of various hospitals in hard hit communities, but there is no doubt that she is seeking to get to those heavily engaged and get their opinions.

I had to leave after Rachel’s first guest tonight.  I had to drive to an ATM to give a loan to keep my handyman’s pickup truck operational to deliver groceries and keep me going.  I took up my mask, my gloves, my can of Lysol, and attacked the poor helpless ATM, debit card in hand.  The well armored knight of the Coronavirus wars!  En guarde!

The granddaughter is one of those people who needs help and receives it from the government.  (The daughter is a felon and sex worker professional, and the grandmother took custody to stop continued sexual abuse.)  My experience with the system is that you have all sorts of trouble making a profit by leeching off the government.  The government assistance is less than it takes to bring up a daughter properly.  I would say my opinion is informed.  Sure, abuse exists, and there are bad people in the system preventing those from receiving help that they really need.  I will just say that what I have experienced is not what you have alleged.

Among the red crowd, there are small government believers, there are subtle racists, and there are blatant racists.  The latter can be set aside for the moment.  The first two are rather difficult to tell apart for a blue retired professional living in a tourist community.  Thus, I avoid labeling folk.  I do keep my eyes open.  Those that repeatedly and approvingly bring up Reagan’s welfare queen myth are suspect.  They are prejudiced.  They pre judge.  They assume that a person with a given skin pigment will act in a certain way.  They are generally acting on their political views rather than anything actually seen in the real world.

Now do I need to point fingers and hurl insults to wake anyone up?

Rachel got her start as an AIDS activist, making noise to get the conservative Reagan administration to fight a deadly disease.  A few of the up and comers from that long ago fight are now pillars of the battle against the Coronavirus.  Again, the problem is a conservative racist administration that does not care to engage.

It comes back to making America great again.  We can’t bomb other country’s infrastructure as was done in World War II.  We cannot get the jobs back that were sent abroad to avoid the victories won in the labor wars, or the benefits granted in the progressive era.  What we can do is confront the division of wealth.  It cannot recreate the situation that existed in the progressive era.  We cannot be again what we once were.  It cannot help if racists keep voting to keep themselves poor so long as the minorities are poorer.

But those who are dreaming the red dream have to wake up.

(04-11-2020, 04:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My sisters fiance has some friends (business related) who live in New York. She told me what they have to say about the situation there is not good. One lives across the street from one of the hospitals. She told me that he's watched as they're loading bodies into a refrigerated truck that's parked at the hospital. I'm not denying that we have a major crisis going on now.

I didn't know that you have children. You've never mentioned children with me til now. I'm sorry about the issue with the daughter and granddaughter. I'm glad to see the grandmother stepped in and took over the responsibility of raising and providing for her. Just so you know, I have friends who are welfare recipients and friends who have children who are welfare recipient. So, I'm not a stranger to welfare recipients either. Like I said, they're every where these days. They are all single moms with kids who have never been married. We have lots of them these days. Guess what, access to free birth control ain't working. Oh, the fathers are often referred to as sperm donor. Like I've said, having it both ways isn't going to last forever.

(04-11-2020, 05:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: … Welfare should not be a way of life.  People who abuse the system do exist.  I have encountered people with real needs getting not enough help more than I've encountered abusers.  Thus, we have different opinions of the system.  I have no problem with attempts to stop the abuse.  Propose real solutions rather than sharing your pre judgements.  I would suggest providing help for a single mistake, but not provide a way of life...

(04-11-2020, 09:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: A few year's ago, there was a huge bruhaha in Denmark over the abuse of their welfare system by one exceptionally devious person.  The sums involved were not huge, but they were substantial enough to merit the charge.  The response from the public: she should be punished, but the system should remain as-is.  Their justification?  The system did good for the recipients and the nation as a whole.  Making it less generous and more onerous to use would defeat that, so leave it alone.  That's what happened.  Abuse didn't skyrocket; in fact, it may have declined.  The Danes are happy.

Try that here.

(04-11-2020, 12:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-11-2020, 09:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: A few year's ago, there was a huge bruhaha in Denmark over the abuse of their welfare system by one exceptionally devious person.  The sums involved were not huge, but they were substantial enough to merit the charge.  The response from the public: she should be punished, but the system should remain as-is.  Their justification?  The system did good for the recipients and the nation as a whole.  Making it less generous and more onerous to use would defeat that, so leave it alone.  That's what happened.  Abuse didn't skyrocket; in fact, it may have declined.  The Danes are happy.

Try that here.

Reasonable for the Danes.  They are not trying to be the world’s policeman.  They can afford to be helpful to their own people.

But I was more interested in getting something from Classic other than reporting on his own ignorance and bias.  Stopping welfare abuse is not one of my big issues.  It is just rather than announcing what is wrong, how would he go about fixing it?  After decades of trying to cut domestic spending, I would have thought that angle would have been pursued by the reds about as far as it could go.

(04-11-2020, 12:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-11-2020, 09:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: A few year's ago, there was a huge bruhaha in Denmark over the abuse of their welfare system by one exceptionally devious person.  The sums involved were not huge, but they were substantial enough to merit the charge.  The response from the public: she should be punished, but the system should remain as-is.  Their justification?  The system did good for the recipients and the nation as a whole.  Making it less generous and more onerous to use would defeat that, so leave it alone.  That's what happened.  Abuse didn't skyrocket; in fact, it may have declined.  The Danes are happy.

Try that here.

Reasonable for the Danes.  They are not trying to be the world’s policeman.  They can afford to be helpful to their own people.

But I was more interested in getting something from Classic other than reporting on his own ignorance and bias.  Stopping welfare abuse is not one of my big issues.  It is just rather than announcing what is wrong, how would he go about fixing it?  After decades of trying to cut domestic spending, I would have thought that angle would have been pursued by the reds about as far as it could go.

(04-11-2020, 05:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The difference seems to be primarily that Rachel gets to throw MSNBC’s money around, thus she does not have to rely on what she gets from a friend of a friend of a friend.  You did come to the same conclusion.  The Coronavirus represents a serious threat and challenge.  The difference is that Rachel did not slander what you are saying because your political opinions vary.  What you said was out of pure ignorance and political bias.  Again, try watching blue media before you criticize it.  Insult and slander out of ignorance and bias does not come across well.

Welfare should not be a way of life.  People who abuse the system do exist.  I have encountered people with real needs getting not enough help more than I've encountered abusers.  Thus, we have different opinions of the system.  It is just who you hang with.  I have no problem with attempts to stop the abuse.  Propose real solutions rather than sharing your pre judgements.  I would suggest providing help for a single mistake, but not provide a way of life.

I never married or had children, but my sister had a family, as did my nephew.  My mother had a saying, quoted at her funeral and which I have adopted.  "Glad to see them come, and glad to see them go."  With the current isolation policies, there is more emphasis on the first part.

(04-11-2020, 07:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I came to the same conclusion without Rachel. As a matter of fact, I knew about it before the show that you watched aired. I do watch blue media from time to time and blue media was highly partisan and still is highly partisan. Same o, same o, still applies. Fox is more middle of the road with the exception of Hannity and Ingram to a lesser degree. CNN and MSNBC are an extension of the Democratic Party for the most part.

(04-11-2020, 09:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-11-2020, 07:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I came to the same conclusion without Rachel. As a matter of fact, I knew about it before the show that you watched aired. I do watch blue media from time to time and blue media was highly partisan and still is highly partisan. Same o, same o, still applies. Fox is more middle of the road with the exception of Hannity and Ingram to a lesser degree. CNN and MSNBC are an extension of the Democratic Party for the most part.

You still criticized a particular report based on your way of looking at things only.  We have lots of examples on this site of how a particular person’s primary perspective effects whether certain types of reporting are accepted.  People seek out news that conforms to their world view.  To do this, they have to defend their world view, deflect facts which would be inconsistent with one's beliefs.

For me, I started taking Coronavirus seriously early, as that is what blue folk do.  I called it the Trigger and stopped working my no-Trigger Crises analysis early on.  For you, you quote friends of a friends of a friend, but are ever so willing to assume your prejudices are correct and report them as if they are factual.

Red world views artificially emphasize the importance of economics, while the blue tends to look more at science and the longer view.  I am happy to see your conclusions are with the scientists on the Coronavirus problem, but still the pollution, warming and infrastructure warnings slide off as fake news an hoaxes.  That seems to be what happens whenever big government action or scientific analysis is presented.

I don’t know that we can afford it anymore.

(04-12-2020, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I used my judgement like everyone else. Do you have a problem with that? I can't stand Rachel and the heavy barrage of criticism at the beginning turned me off. Now, you can put your words in my mouth and your beliefs in my head and fuck up like every idiot who did it before you and disappear like they did when life for them became more miserable and the integrity among the group was gone. I could hammer you with truthful terms that you don't like at anytime.

(04-12-2020, 02:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: … There was a time when the red might have been more of a force on the T4T forums.  September 11 was proposed as the Trigger, even if it was a bit early.  Bush 43 was proposed as the Grey Champion.  The War on Terror was a central idea.  The Great Debate was ‘stay the course’ against ‘cut and run’.  For a time, the conservatives were if not dominant were at least a significant force on the site.  It was easy to believe the red were winning.

I would not have associated the word ‘integrity’ with the Bush 43 administration.

The economic collapse, the international response to resist Neo colonialism, Obama’s election, pretty much ended all that as if it had never been.  I remember that time as a false regeneracy, a conservative attempt to play the Grey Champion role, a rejection of the attempt to actually implement the new ideals.  Most just want to forget that it ever happened, to look the other way when considering it’s role in history and in S&H turning theory.

Integrity by cutting and running was the response of many red posters.  They at least recognized they were wrong and vanished.  Since then, the site has been blue dominant.

(04-12-2020, 02:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I used my judgement like everyone else. Do you have a problem with that? I can't stand Rachel and the heavy barrage of criticism at the beginning turned me off. Now, you can put your words in my mouth and your beliefs in my head and fuck up like every idiot who did it before you and disappear like they did when life for them became more miserable and the integrity among the group was gone. I could hammer you with truthful terms that you don't like at anytime.

Truth would be nice.  Reports on your biases that blatantly contradict reality, no so much.  Integrity ought to start with yourself.

***

A few more thoughts…

There was a time when the red might have been more of a force on the T4T forums.  September 11 was proposed as the Trigger, even if it was a bit early.  Bush 43 was proposed as the Grey Champion.  The War on Terror was a central idea.  The Great Debate was ‘stay the course’ against ‘cut and run’.  For a time, the conservatives were if not dominant were at least a significant force on the site.  It was easy to believe the red were winning.

I would not have associated the word ‘integrity’ with the Bush 43 administration.

The economic collapse, the international response to resist Neo colonialism, Obama’s election, pretty much ended all that as if it had never been.  I remember that time as a false regeneracy, a conservative attempt to play the Grey Champion role, a rejection of the attempt to actually implement the new ideals.  Most just want to forget that it ever happened, to look the other way when considering it’s role in history and in S&H turning theory.

Integrity by cutting and running was the response of many red posters.  They at least recognized they were wrong and vanished.  Since then, the site has been blue dominant.