Bashing: Let's Do Gandhi Next

[thrown_hammer]

Originally posted by Superman
You would be more engaging if you had better information. Or at least, more accurate assumptions. About three days ago I read about a woman researcher who is going to write about her experiences trying to feed herself on the food stamp allowance here. That allowance is $21 per week. You wanna lose weight? Try eating at a cost of $1 per meal.

And that's the cost of food stamps. For one reason or another, lots of hungry people do not get food stamps. You guys can deny whatever is convenient, but the world knows we are a nation where starving and undernourished children (lots of them, frankly) live in the same communities with folks who spend hundreds of dollars for a cool steering wheel.

And you guys think that's "good."

Feeling bad about it or even beleiving they exist doesn't feed hungry children.

[Super_Dave_D]

this is interesting

Wasting is defined by a low weight-to-height ratio; it is visible in the form of skeletally thin children usually found in the middle of a famine.

First, contrary to popular belief, Africa does not have the most children suffering from wasting. "Although in the past 10 years, every subregion of Africa saw a rise in both the number of wasted children under the age of five and in the overall rate of wasting, about 78% of the world's 5.5 million wasted children live in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; nearly two thirds of those in India alone," says Webb.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/tu-fsf052206.php

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
The advantage that capitalism has is that it has no illusions of altruism. If an economic system is openly based on selfishness, acting selfish is not hidden or shameful. One can anticipate everyone's selfishness rather than being the unfortunate victim of it.

This is my favorite. Imagine me shaking my head, face down, as I say: You guys are okay with the fact that our economic system is based on selfishness and greed? That's okay? Just because it works in the sense that some folks are making lots of money? You flip back and forth between "greed is good, we use it as economic fuel" and "a rising tide lifts all boats." Make up your mind. You're pretending that everyone is protected by this "system," but at the same time you also know that this is a contest for resources. You accept and support a system whereby there are winners and losers. Some folks win a little. Some lose a little. Some win bigtime. And here's the part you have to turn your back on: Some folks lose bigtime. And you call this a Christian nation. I don't. I call this a hypocritical and greedy nation. What were the problems that Christ had with the Pharises?

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Superman
You would be more engaging if you had better information. Or at least, more accurate assumptions. About three days ago I read about a woman researcher who is going to write about her experiences trying to feed herself on the food stamp allowance here. That allowance is $21 per week. You wanna lose weight? Try eating at a cost of $1 per meal.

And that's the cost of food stamps. For one reason or another, lots of hungry people do not get food stamps. You guys can deny whatever is convenient, but the world knows we are a nation where starving and undernourished children (lots of them, frankly) live in the same communities with folks who spend hundreds of dollars for a cool steering wheel.

And you guys think that's "good."

I can and have eaten for $3.00 a day for long periods of time in college. I did not feel bad for myself either. Ramen noodles, cheap bread, potatoes. I am guessing that the "woman researcher" had higher tastes than her budget would allow. Life is not always easy = someone in touch with reality.....Life SHOULD be easy = bleeding heart liberal

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Superman
You accept and support a system whereby there are winners and losers. Some folks win a little. Some lose a little. Some win bigtime. And here's the part you have to turn your back on: Some folks lose bigtime. And you call this a Christian nation. I don't. I call this a hypocritical and greedy nation. What were the problems that Christ had with the Pharises?

I can't call it a christian nation or the majority of lefties will scream foul.

I call this the American way and the reality of life and nature.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Yes

You assume he is "dense" because he does not deliver speeches as well as Slick Willy and you think that a president should have to prove that he won some fist fights in high-school in order to some day be capable of being commander in chief. You also seem to think that any American who was born into a wealthy family should not be allowed to become successful (I assume the Kennedies are exempt in your mind though).

Now I'm wondering who is densest. Let's take them one at a time.

"You assume he is "dense" because he does not deliver speeches as well as Slick Willy"

Nope. That's one of the reasons I think he's dense, but not the only reason. There is an absolute LITANY of reasons why someone would conclude this guy is dense.

"you think that a president should have to prove that he won some fist fights in high-school in order to some day be capable of being commander in chief. "

Nope. I don't care how many fistfights a candidate has been in. I know a coward when I see one, and Dubya is a coward. Lots of candidates might be well-prepared for the White House without ever having been in a fistfight.

"You also seem to think that any American who was born into a wealthy family should not be allowed to become successful (I assume the Kennedies are exempt in your mind though). "

Nope. Most candidates are fairly wealthy. That's just a brute fact. I think it would probably be preferable to have someone there with blue collar roots, but it ain't gonna happen. Wealthy folks can certainly make good public policy makers. I do NOT begrudge folks their wealth. I do not believe that wealth is a Sin. I'm fairly comfortable myself. I got no problem with successful people. I have a problem with greedy people, whether they be rich or poor. I also have a problem with public policy makers whose agenda is to transfer wealth away from wage earners and toward people who are already wealthy. But again, here, you accuse me of opposing the success of people who come from wealthy families. I have never said that. I am perfectly comfortable with a person from a wealthy family becoming successful on their own.

Where does this crap come from, Tim? Are you needing to mischaracterize liberals because noticing their actual positions would cause you to see the sense? Mischaracterizing and caricaturizing is necessary for some folks. Just as a reasonable, rational conservative makes good sense when they are calmly describing their honest and responsible beliefs, so do liberals. In order to hate a group, you pretty much have to pretend their beliefs are insane. To do that, you have to mischaracterize them. Is this your emotional need, Tim?

And.....where is the mystery. Stripped bare, I'm sahing "greed is bad, not good." To that, conservatives have to say "Well, it's a little more complex than that. You see, greed by itself is bad, but we not only have to let it occur, we are best off when it happens anyway because a spinoff impact of peoples' greed is that they create wealth and opportunities for others."

Which theory is simple and which looks like a complex justification of their own affluence?

I like supply and demand. I like market forces. I reject the Russian model of state-managed communism. And I reject selfishness and greed. To me, it's not necessary to harness an evil. It is a temptation for which there are alternatives. But....the alternatives are less profitable for the folks who are currently in power.

[Moneyguy1]

Once again, the impasse. No one is going to convince someone who has allowed themselves to be programmed into believing that large numbers of the populace are inferior and somehow evil, and that labels apply. I find that narrow minded and shallow thinking, but to each his own..

If it makes you happy......

But here, NO SALE.

[Tim Hancock]

Supe, there you go again. You said previously said "NONE" of the words I "put in your mouth" were true. Now here you admit "That's one of the reasons I think he's dense, but not the only reason."

You also blatantly equated cowardice to getting beat up in school.
You used your friend's example of punching Bush as part of your evidence that Bush is therefore somehow a coward. Then you somehow try to infer that only a coward would have invaded Iraq

You are flipflopping all over the place and it smells of shiit.

You are calling me dense? WTF!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman
You would be more engaging if you had better information. Or at least, more accurate assumptions. About three days ago I read about a woman researcher who is going to write about her experiences trying to feed herself on the food stamp allowance here. That allowance is $21 per week. You wanna lose weight? Try eating at a cost of $1 per meal.

And that's the cost of food stamps. For one reason or another, lots of hungry people do not get food stamps. You guys can deny whatever is convenient, but the world knows we are a nation where starving and undernourished children (lots of them, frankly) live in the same communities with folks who spend hundreds of dollars for a cool steering wheel.

And you guys think that's "good."

Are you ignorant of the various other government and private sources of nutrition available to anyone who wants them. Are you seriously so dilluted that you think food stamps is the only or even main source for them?

[tabs]

This Thread is useless DRIVEL. Stuporman your alternating between hysteria and whining. Why don't you just take a time out, and collect yourself before U make a bigger fool of yourself.

[Tim Hancock]

Killjoy!

[cairns]

"Is it interesting to anyone how different the view is when you get close to something? People who work for and with public agencies and programs have a great deal more respect for those public servants and programs than folks who simply notice the long line at the drivers' license office once every three years. They know, for example, that the effective functioning of government offices is supported by some legislators and ACTIVELY TARGETED FOR INEFFICIENCY by others. Imagine managing a drivers' license office, or food program office, and getting 74% of the minimum budget you told the legislature you NEED in order to maintain minimally decent service. Who is at fault for gubmit inefficiency when the R's are the ones ensuring those offices are understaffed? But hey, it works well for them. Getting citizens pissed off at gubmit. Real cute. Real patriotic, eh?"

Supe I'm beginning to think you're the one that's dense. Or a genuine whack job. Do you really think that's how Government works?

I'm not sure you're capable of debating with any reason or logic at all but let me try: I live in one the one of the most Democratic enclaves in the nation- Montgomery County, Maryland. It is OWNED by Democrats, it has one of the largest county budgets in the nation and the highest taxes. It has a budget that eclipses that of many COUNTRIES. It is, by no means, understaffed. But I can assure you that the wait for county services- from a Driver's License to a snowplow to a business license to a stop sign, is incredibly, insipidly and unbelievably protracted.

Can you explain this?

Do you really think it could possible result from understaffing? Or Republicans?

Could you tell my why it's wrong for a legislator (of any party) to actively "target" any government office that is inefficiently run?

Unless you can come up with some reasoned arguments or evidence that support your position all the Republican/Bush bashing in the world isn't going to solve anything and only serves to diminish the legitimacy of your point of view.

[thrown_hammer]

The real issue here is getting locked in a room for five minutes with pollution...

[Superman]

I'm not going to volley again, Tim. If three iternations of my statements cannot be accurately interpreted by you, a fourth is not going to produce clarity in your mind. Dubya strikes me as a coward, regardless of who decked him or if nobody decked him or if everybody did. Dubya strikes me as an idiot and there are MOUNTAINS of evidence to support that IN ADDITION TO his pronunciation, grammar and facial expression problems. Someone besides a coward could have invaded Iraq.

Let's go at it this way: You've also said Dubya is your hero and that you wish all presidents had his fiscal restraint. That remark suggests you, and all other conservatives, are in favor of bigger government.

[tabs]

Originally posted by Superman
I'm not going to volley again, Tim. If three iternations of my statements cannot be accurately interpreted by you, a fourth is not going to produce clarity in your mind. Dubya strikes me as a coward, regardless of who decked him or if nobody decked him or if everybody did. Dubya strikes me as an idiot and there are MOUNTAINS of evidence to support that IN ADDITION TO his pronunciation, grammar and facial expression problems. Someone besides a coward could have invaded Iraq.

Let's go at it this way: You've also said Dubya is your hero and that you wish all presidents had his fiscal restraint. That remark suggests you, and all other conservatives, are in favor of bigger government.

U never argue with the mentally Ill, all their arguments are circular in nature and all U wind up doing is going no where.

[Tim Hancock]

I don't recall the fiscal restraint part, but you said what you said in this post and can't take it back. I was actually suprised by your double speak. Trying to put it back on me is not working. Oh well, another one to file in the Rodeo category.

[BeyGon]

"The guys I went to school with would have moderated his bravado SUBSTANTIALLY."

But not you, you wouldn't have "moderated"him. Were you picked on in school too?

Dean

[Superman]

Originally posted by cairns
"Is it interesting to anyone how different the view is when you get close to something? People who work for and with public agencies and programs have a great deal more respect for those public servants and programs than folks who simply notice the long line at the drivers' license office once every three years. They know, for example, that the effective functioning of government offices is supported by some legislators and ACTIVELY TARGETED FOR INEFFICIENCY by others. Imagine managing a drivers' license office, or food program office, and getting 74% of the minimum budget you told the legislature you NEED in order to maintain minimally decent service. Who is at fault for gubmit inefficiency when the R's are the ones ensuring those offices are understaffed? But hey, it works well for them. Getting citizens pissed off at gubmit. Real cute. Real patriotic, eh?"

Supe I'm beginning to think you're the one that's dense. Or a genuine whack job. Do you really think that's how Government works?

I'm not sure you're capable of debating with any reason or logic at all but let me try: I live in one the one of the most Democratic enclaves in the nation- Montgomery County, Maryland. It is OWNED by Democrats, it has one of the largest county budgets in the nation and the highest taxes. It has a budget that eclipses that of many COUNTRIES. It is, by no means, understaffed. But I can assure you that the wait for county services- from a Driver's License to a snowplow to a business license to a stop sign, is incredibly, insipidly and unbelievably protracted.

Can you explain this?

Do you really think it could possible result from understaffing? Or Republicans?

Could you tell my why it's wrong for a legislator (of any party) to actively "target" any government office that is inefficiently run?

Unless you can come up with some reasoned arguments or evidence that support your position all the Republican/Bush bashing in the world isn't going to solve anything and only serves to diminish the legitimacy of your point of view.

You ask me why, in the face of a bloated budget, waiting times in your county's licensing offices are insipidly protracted. I don't live in your county and don't care why those wait times are so insipid. But I will say this: If you're going to lecture me on how government works, you had better come with at least a rudimentary knowledge of how yours works. In other words, if anybody should know the answer to your question, it should be you. Tell us. Why are those waits so insipid?

I currently work as a consultant to a public agency. From the middle of 1992 to the early part of 2003 I managed a state program and held a responsible position that is created by statute. That position, and office, dealt with wage-and-hour laws. Minimum wage, overtime, child labor, prevailing wage, etc. I routinely participated in legislation by providing information to legislators and testimony to committees. When I report that Democrats and government agencies attempt to provide good service, but that Republicans actively work to ensure those programs DO NOT operate effectively, I really mean it. I watched it happen every Session. The last thing Republicans want to happen is for the state to be able to enforce child labor, minimum wage and overtime laws. It was an annual, hellacious fight for which I had a front row seat.

Now, perhaps you want to start over. If so, you now have information you apparently did not have before. You also have asked a question that will be interesting to hear you answer, about your own local licensing offices. I have a clue to get you started: Licensing is almost always a state, rather than county, function.

[thrown_hammer]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
I don't recall the fiscal restraint part, but you said what you said in this post and can't take it back. I was actually suprised by your double speak. Trying to put it back on me is not working. Oh well, another one to file in the Rodeo category.

Tim,
If you cut and paste every one of his flip flops (just in this thread) into one post and lay it out for the world to see in connect the dot simplicity one of two things would happen. Either he would argue with you, or ignore it completely and throw some more wood on the fire. You cannot win the argument because he isn’t trying to win or even lose, but only to build the fire.

It’s like the Mongolian proverb “There are three things which you may not know. Two of which I have made clear, one of which will find you.”

[BeyGon]

Sure Superman

"I reject the Russian model of state-managed communism."

I am glad you at least reject the Russian model, what about Hillary's?