Two more questions for partisans

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whitney Houston was white?

Nope, but she was very wealthy, and so was her daughter.

You do stumble onto an interesting point, though. Whether or not those rich people were successful in their treatments or not, and whether they were white or not, the fact is, rich addicts don't go to prison. Poor ones do.

Rich people of any race don't go to prison because they are not in the street buying dope. They send their minions out to make good connections and of course, price is no object. The people in the street don't have Hollywood or entertainment connections, so the feds are able to track and trap them much more easily. Street dealers and buyers are very careless.

But the point I was making is that money and treatment are not the answer. There is no answer to be truthful. But the less dope around, the less people will try it and get hooked. It's stopping a problem before it starts.

Guy, you see, this is where you are deluded. You really think that the GOP and guys like my boss care about your religious, sexual and racial fears. They don't. Oh, my boss did drop the N-bomb in front of me once talking about Obama.

No, no, no... these guys have their goals- cut taxes for the rich, loosen the regulations so they can screw you a little more, and making sure your job pays a little bit less so they can make themselves richer.

But the thing you care about like throwing out the Mexicans and stopping the gays from getting married. That shit never happens.

I don't want the government (or anybody else) caring about me. The best thing government can do is stay out of my life. The further government is from my front door--the better. We don't have a government to care about people, we have a government to govern.

I have a hearing date to get my property taxes reevaluated this month. Do you know what my city did? They are sending the Board of Education lawyers downtown to fight me on it. It's the city that's responsible for my property being worth half it was 20 years ago, and now they're coming down to keep their stipend coming in. Screw government. The city should not be involved between me and the county. If they want to do anything, increase my property values instead of fighting me on it. Furthermore they should not be dragging me downtown in the first place. This is an issue that could easily be resolved by email. But they do this to harass people so they don't fight for what's right.

So your boss dropped the N word. Rappers make songs with that word every day. Richard Pryor made a nice carrier for himself using that word.

 

[Coyote]

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

It's more the left than the right.

Kate's law was passed mostly by a Republican Congress. Now it goes to the Senate. Take note on how many Democrats vote against it.

Kate's law is pretty much common sense. It's extra penalties for felons who return to this country after deportation. Now who could possible be against that? I'll tell you who, the Democrats.

So where is the middle ground or "having a conversation" with people who think that way? Americans who are placing political power over safety of the people in their country?

And right there you epitomize the problem with your claim "it's more the left than the right" rather than acknowledging your share of the problem.

Fair enough, examples please?

Kate's law is good for the entire country and not just one party. Name me one policy by the Democrats that were good for the country (as a whole) that were met with Republican opposition.

The Democrat party is the anti-white party. Their long term goal is to make whites a minority as quickly as possible because every minority group votes Democrat as a majority. Their only goal is to make the US a one-party government by eliminating whites as the majority.

You're last paragraph is silly.

As far as policies good for the country regardless of party and opposed by the Republicans:

The individual mandate portion of the ACA. The only way to get insurance to be willing cover pre-existing conditions is to have a large enough pool of healthy people to cover the costs and the individual mandate is probably the best means of doing that. Expanding health insurance coverage is good for the country as a whole, and the individual mandate is one way to try and increase that coverage to people who might not otherwise be able to get it due to pre-existing conditions. Now lest you think that the mandate was an invention of Obama - it wasn't. Republicans had the idea of a free-rider fee for people who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it.

End-of-life counseling is another. Too many people and their families don't make plans for end of life care, and what they want or don't want for care at the end of life. This was incorporated into the ACA - is good for the entire country but - was opposed by the Republicans who called it "Death Panels". Oh...and...Republicans also used to include counseling for end-of-life issues in their own healthcare proposals.


The DISCLOSE Act. Transparency in campaign contributions is good for the entire country don't you think? Yet, the Republicans opposed the DISCLOSE Act. And the irony is - before Obama, Republicans were all for transparency in campaign contributions. Boehner: “sunlight is the best disinfectant”?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The individual mandate portion of the ACA. The only way to get insurance to be willing cover pre-existing conditions is to have a large enough pool of healthy people to cover the costs and the individual mandate is probably the best means of doing that. Expanding health insurance coverage is good for the country as a whole, and the individual mandate is one way to try and increase that coverage to people who might not otherwise be able to get it due to pre-existing conditions. Now lest you think that the mandate was an invention of Obama - it wasn't. Republicans had the idea of a free-rider fee for people who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it.

How is that good for the entire country? It was Republicans that said people (particularly young people) would choose the penalty instead of the insurance. We made that prediction and it came true. Also, how is it good when the government tells YOU what you can afford? I applied for Commie Care. I know what the questions were.

They didn't ask what you paid in rent. They didn't ask what your mortgage was. They didn't ask if you were paying child support or not. They didn't ask what kind of medical bills you were paying. They didn't ask how much gasoline you need to get to work every day. They didn't ask what your car payments were. They didn't ask how much property tax you paid. They didn't ask what you pay for your child's education. They didn't ask what you paid for house or car insurance. They didn't ask any of those things.

What they did is say you make X, so in our opinion, you can afford to buy health insurance. And if you had all these outstanding costs and bills, too bad. You can't afford it so now on top of the financial problems you have, we are going to keep your badly needed income tax check on top of it.

That's good for the entire country?

As for the link you posted, here is what it said:

The individual mandate was a Republican policy idea. It was developed as a defense against single-payer health care. It was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation. George H.W. Bush put together a plan with an individual mandate, but left it on the shelf because there was no way it’d pass in a Democratic Congress.

That's right, a Democratic Congress would not pass it. Furthermore as the article stated, only half of the Republicans in the Senate voted for it. So it's not entirely a Republican idea. It was an idea of a few.

The DISCLOSE Act. Transparency in campaign contributions is good for the entire country don't you think? Yet, the Republicans opposed the DISCLOSE Act. And the irony is - before Obama, Republicans were all for transparency in campaign contributions. Boehner: “sunlight is the best disinfectant”?

I don't know what that last link had to do with transparency unless it's buried somewhere at the bottom. And your first link sent you to an AOL cover page.

In any case, McCain passed a campaign contributions law, and all people did was send money to PAC"s instead. So it didn't do any good, and actually, it was better before the law was passed because the candidates had to answer to the ads themselves. With PAC's, they produced ads and commercials that sometimes were misleading and even lies, but the candidates had no control over what they publicized so they didn't have to answer for them. Supposedly, the candidate was to have no contact with these various organizations which is something you can't prove even if they did.

 

[JoeB131]

Rich people of any race don't go to prison because they are not in the street buying dope. They send their minions out to make good connections and of course, price is no object. The people in the street don't have Hollywood or entertainment connections, so the feds are able to track and trap them much more easily. Street dealers and buyers are very careless.

The point was, they were out buying drugs that they weren't entitled to own. Like Limbaugh sending out his maid to score Oxycotin for him. What rich people have when they are caught are people are really good lawyers, as opposed to the underpaid public defender who pleads his client down to two years and permanent unemployment for a bag of weed.

But thanks for finally admitting the system is racist, Ray. We've made real progress today.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't want the government (or anybody else) caring about me. The best thing government can do is stay out of my life. The further government is from my front door--the better. We don't have a government to care about people, we have a government to govern.

Of course you do. You want the government to protect your imaginary white privilege.

I have a hearing date to get my property taxes reevaluated this month. Do you know what my city did? They are sending the Board of Education lawyers downtown to fight me on it. It's the city that's responsible for my property being worth half it was 20 years ago, and now they're coming down to keep their stipend coming in. Screw government. The city should not be involved between me and the county. If they want to do anything, increase my property values instead of fighting me on it. Furthermore they should not be dragging me downtown in the first place. This is an issue that could easily be resolved by email. But they do this to harass people so they don't fight for what's right.

Guy, your property is worth half of what it was worth because the One Percenters you worship moved all the good paying jobs to Mexico. Again, anyone who was worth anything got the fuck out of Cleveland,and who can blame them. I was there for a week and was depressed.

So now here you are bitching about the other poor people who couldn't move out, just like you couldn't.

But you still want to believe you are better, and not some loser whose boss won't even pay for his health insurance.

"Hey, boss, Ray just went tits up!"

"Damn, better hire another one! Where's my link to Craig's List?"

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

1. I am very interested in changing minds. I just don't believe that it can be done on a significant scale.

2. Get whites to vote in a bloc similar to hispanics if not blacks. That would give us a chance to drive policy in the short term, and play strong defense once the nation goes minority majority.

Great post. I'm touched by the hint of honesty. You are making progress.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis
This seems to be the most obvious answer. At least in my opinion.
Neither side cares how they win, just as long as they do it. It is actually admitted now. Maybe it always was, IDK.. It can be through illegal means, violence, loss of rights ANYTHING to WIN

then create a side to put me on who does in fact care *how* we win.

if winning means turning into the very thing we're fighting, we lost regardless of the win.

Thinking this through a bit - I think the coffee just kicked in, maybe, maybe not - it does seem to me that the two sides have a different vision of what "winning" would look like.

The Left is, for the most part, going to wait for demographics to do the job for them. They thought this was over, and that's part of their shock over Trump. And in general, I would think this is the most likely outcome.

The Right seems to think that it really can somehow "beat" the other side. I hear it on conservative talk radio, where people like Limbaugh and Levin constantly preach that cooperation is impossible, moderation is impossible, that victory can be the only goal. Such a goal is good professionally for them, obviously, because it maintains their relevance.

So based on that, I think I can understand the Left's view more than the Right's. But that's just me. That's why I wonder what "victory" would actually look like.
.

and obama forced some/many things on people cause the left THOUGHT their ideals were morally superior. he gained in popularity for whatever reason but as human nature dictates in the end, you can only push so many so far.

i understand the right side better so even when i disagree i don't say as much cause i understand where they're coming from. but even then sooner or later the 10% on my side is going to get on my nerves and i'll say so. Political Chic and i had some fun yesterday and now i'm sure i'm on her shitlist.

but i don't agree you can SLAY the other side into changing how they feel they will, like you and i, and even her, will simply dig in harder for the fight til the time one side or the other simply tires of pushing a 10,000,000lb boulder around with their clever conversation.

those are the people on either side i simply ignore and people such as yourself who wants to talk and get past all this shit will start speaking up more, and tuning out the rhetoric better as we move on.

in the end i think i've put 15+ people on ignore. likely more. not because of a right or wrong answer or scenario but just because i've seen their style of arguing long enough to know it will never work.

if you refuse to be forced into another position i don't see how you think you can force someone else into yours i guess i'm saying. not you, but how the 10% seems to think on both sides.

PC is a HUGE hack. If you actually prove her wrong, you get put on ignore. Trust me, I know lol

well like i was saying, sooner or later the 10% on "my side" is going to annoy the shit out of me too and she did. everything is a battle to her and if you don't play you're insulted and ridiculed. very liberal of her.

How did you arrive at that percentage? Serious question.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion
.

....which you just did. LOL. I'm not a party member, many are not. You can only see parties. This is the one thousandths time it's been pointed out to you but yet you continue with your personal attacks.

I didn't say "parties", I said "sides".

And I'd love to see where the personal attack is.
.

"Two more questions for partisans"

HINT.

I posted the insult. That's why I posted it. You think your shit doesn't stink.

That's funny. Left winger JoeB said the same thing about me. You two are like peas in a pod. I've noticed that before.

And the term "Partisan" is a personal insult? I see.

That's okay. The rest of us are having a pretty interesting conversation here.
.

You don't "see" anything. I can break it down to baby sized pieces and you can't see it. Your thread title is about partisans then you just claimed you said nothing about partisans. I quoted:

"Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion"

...which is total bullshit. That proves you are unaware or disinterested in the issues being discussed here and elsewhere. If all you see is personal attacks that's a shortcoming on your part. You insult people whole-cloth then recoil in horror when people don't accept it as gospel. Sorry if your hit job isn't turning out the way you like.

You've done it again. Keep it up and the two of us may start being cordial toward one another.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you are coming on this site & posting crap, expect to get thrown back ion your face. It is that simple. If you are coming here & posting racial & bigoted comments, be prepared to be called out for it.

Okay, but to what end?

Do we agree that being personally attacked will only solidify the views of the person being attacked?

If so, what's the point?
.

This is an anonymous forum. There are no personal attacks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What I'm trying to get to is what that would look like. Are you going to convince a vast majority of the country to agree with you?

It would look a lot like the last election.

So having your candidate receive 46.4% of the vote qualifies as a vast majority?.

we use the electoral college to select presidents. the win there was substantial.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that the majority of country agrees with ANYTHING.
.

The majority of the country agrees on quite a lot.

The latest polling shows no one, not even a plurality of republicans want anything to do with the republicans health bill.

There are no economic issues with which a plurality of Republicans are in sync with the agenda that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have proposed.

Ask how that can be....find the honest answer...and understand how we got where we are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It would look a lot like the last election.

So having your candidate receive 46.4% of the vote qualifies as a vast majority?.

we use the electoral college to select presidents. the win there was substantial.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that the majority of country agrees with ANYTHING.
.

The majority of the country agrees on quite a lot.

The latest polling shows no one, not even a plurality of republicans want anything to do with the republicans health bill.

Although it has already begun, far too many people still think that polls reflect public opinion. In fact, polls are used to shape public opinion.

This is why so many polls showed Clinton winning by large numbers. Such polls purposely dishearten the opposition to the candidate of choice. However, like I said, people are beginning to wake up to the practice. Hence Trump was much more effective than people thought he would be. Why do you think that the media was so surprised? They were carefully influencing the election in favor of Clinton, but they failed to control all of the outlets and it got away from them.

The polls were fairly accurate in 2016. That they weren't is a myth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course you do. You want the government to protect your imaginary white privilege.

How did you go from point A to point Z? I see you didn't take my advice about seeing a shrink about these weird obsessions of yours.

Guy, your property is worth half of what it was worth because the One Percenters you worship moved all the good paying jobs to Mexico. Again, anyone who was worth anything got the fuck out of Cleveland,and who can blame them. I was there for a week and was depressed.

So now here you are bitching about the other poor people who couldn't move out, just like you couldn't.

What kind of convoluted thinking is that? Okay genius, if the property value decrease in my suburb is because of jobs moving to Mexico, why is it other nearby suburbs who didn't have white flight hold their property value and even increased in some places?

We never had any poor people here until the blacks moved in. Once that happened, good people moved out. You can thank your wonderful federal government for that. Our city should have fought HUD and their lowlifes moving in. Your federal government is ruining neighborhoods all across America. That's what caused property values to decrease. On top of that, when good people started moving out, the city implemented costly and and time consuming landlord regulations, and that means investors don't want to invest here. They will invest in suburbs where the city just leaves them alone. No half-way intelligent investor will invest in a headache.

But you still want to believe you are better, and not some loser whose boss won't even pay for his health insurance.

Here's another suggestion: I think you should write down all these weird obsessions you have, and that way when you realize you have a real problem and seek help, you can hand the doctor your lists (I'm sure it will take more than one page) and that way he can get right to work on you. The sooner the better too!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

It's more the left than the right.

Kate's law was passed mostly by a Republican Congress. Now it goes to the Senate. Take note on how many Democrats vote against it.

Kate's law is pretty much common sense. It's extra penalties for felons who return to this country after deportation. Now who could possible be against that? I'll tell you who, the Democrats.

So where is the middle ground or "having a conversation" with people who think that way? Americans who are placing political power over safety of the people in their country?

Please link to the text of the law and to the hotel results in the house. Thanks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

1. impossible
2. What does that even mean, "beat the other side?" Isn't that kinda what everyone does when there are two sides?

I actually got that from people like Limbaugh and Levin, who often say liberalism must be defeated, and their influence is pretty clear. I'd just like to know what that would look like. I don't think I've received a specific response to that so far.

And there are NOT "two sides", as in Left and Right. Wingers remain the minority, and the rest of us are asking them to get over themselves, extricate themselves from their ideological bubbles, and behave like adults.

Hence my sig. The "two sides" are the wingers on each end, vs. the rest of us, the majority.
.

you are correct that the wingers on both sides are the problem. However, the far left wing encompasses most of the democrat party and most of the media, while the far right is a tiny minority of idiots.

The issue becomes the size and scope of the "wings". Fortunately, at present those of us in the middle are still the numeric majority, and I do sense that our numbers are growing.

Yeah. Be in the middle. Like Redfish. He's in the middle.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rich people of any race don't go to prison because they are not in the street buying dope. They send their minions out to make good connections and of course, price is no object. The people in the street don't have Hollywood or entertainment connections, so the feds are able to track and trap them much more easily. Street dealers and buyers are very careless.

The point was, they were out buying drugs that they weren't entitled to own. Like Limbaugh sending out his maid to score Oxycotin for him. What rich people have when they are caught are people are really good lawyers, as opposed to the underpaid public defender who pleads his client down to two years and permanent unemployment for a bag of weed.

But thanks for finally admitting the system is racist, Ray. We've made real progress today.

I always progress, you just wallow in your "everything is racist" world.

There is no evidence of Limbaugh's maid doing anything for him. He was being blackmailed by her and her ex-con husband. Limbaugh paid for a while, but after some time, he fired her and stop giving them money. That's why the police had to give her and her husband immunity from the crimes they were committing against him.

There was no evidence against Limbaugh other than say-so. And nobody goes to prison for a bag of weed unless it's a very good size bag of it. People in prison for weed are sellers caught with huge quantities, and that's a single digit percentage across the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

It's more the left than the right.

Kate's law was passed mostly by a Republican Congress. Now it goes to the Senate. Take note on how many Democrats vote against it.

Kate's law is pretty much common sense. It's extra penalties for felons who return to this country after deportation. Now who could possible be against that? I'll tell you who, the Democrats.

So where is the middle ground or "having a conversation" with people who think that way? Americans who are placing political power over safety of the people in their country?

Please link to the text of the law and to the hotel results in the house. Thanks.

Senate Democrats block GOP ‘Kate’s Law’ plan to defund sanctuary cities

 

[Correll]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

1. I am very interested in changing minds. I just don't believe that it can be done on a significant scale.

2. Get whites to vote in a bloc similar to hispanics if not blacks. That would give us a chance to drive policy in the short term, and play strong defense once the nation goes minority majority.

Great post. I'm touched by the hint of honesty. You are making progress.

I am always completely honest.

If this is the first time you've detected that, it is you who has made "progress".

 

[Correll]

If you are coming on this site & posting crap, expect to get thrown back ion your face. It is that simple. If you are coming here & posting racial & bigoted comments, be prepared to be called out for it.

Okay, but to what end?

Do we agree that being personally attacked will only solidify the views of the person being attacked?

If so, what's the point?
.

This is an anonymous forum. There are no personal attacks.

Speaking of dishonesty.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Let me help Mac move this discussion forward.

The question is, what does winning look like for partisans?

This can be answered with a little thought experiment.

Describe your Utopia.

What does a perfect America look like? Are there poor people? Are there any hungry kids? Any kids getting shot by accident? Would health insurance be required? Are there mosques? Does baseball have the DH?

Lay it out and then examine what motivates you.

 

[Freewill]

Look, if 2008, where almost all of these assholes lost value in their homes and salaries and stock options didn't change their minds, nothing I'm going to say to them is.

Maybe because unlike you, they studied the problem and rightfully shared the blame with the Democrats instead of running around like a maniac screaming BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

cant tell who you are responding to, please use the "reply" button.

I did and it's posted as a reply. I don't know what you're looking at.

not on my screen, weird.

No, I think this service works differently with different browsers or systems. There are times when I see quotes with no reply from the poster, but others reply to the post so apparently they see something my computer doesn't. Of course I have a Mac and they don't work with everything on the internet.

One does have to be careful. When the reply is hit sometimes it doesn't return after the last reply. So if you don't realize it your reply will go into the middle of all the other replies and not appear when posted.