Biden

[pinstripers]

Another interesting point about reality:

I've talked to many Republicans who will admit today that Bill Clinton was a great president. In fact, Bill Clinton may be the greatest president next to Ronald Reagan over the last 40 years. If you take Bill's balanced budget and Reagan's deficit spending, Bill might be a better Republican than Ronnie too. But I digress...

What did we end up doing to Bill Clinton? We impeached him for lying about a blowjob. Then those same people that burned Clinton at the stake, turned around and unanimously voted for Donald Trump; a legendary philanderer who pays off porn stars to keep them quiet. I mean... reality folks. This is what I'm talking about. It was the Rush Limbaugh's that told us to burn Clinton at the stake, but to elect Trump. Did you know that Rush has been friends with Trump for like 20 years?

Everything is not, as it seems...

you're over that lack of self confidence thing, I'm guessing

[1972Shocker]

Multnomah County (Portland) Democrat HQ Attacked by an Idea

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/11/10/fk-biden-portland-anarchists-vandalize-countys-democrat-party-headquarters-n2579806

[C0|dB|00ded]

Does anybody want to go on a journey of truth with me? The only stipulations are that you arrive to the party ideologically naked, you don't attack others for their statements, and you do your best to form your comments rationally.

I will use wufan's comment about agency as a basis for my first submission into the Shockernet reality workbook.

Democrats are big proponents of government "safety nets".

Republicans have called that "modern day slavery" and nothing more than a way for a political party to sow seeds for votes to be harvested later.

Could it be that Democrats' efforts are virtuous as a whole and they are just trying to help poor people?

This is a rhetorical question; I'm clearly not looking for anybody to answer. It's beyond the scope of our discussion. But just imagine for a moment if Democrats mean what they say, and that "poor people deserve help from the better off".

I mean, it's not a totally foreign concept. Jesus himself preached that continuously in the New Testament. Most of our churches today have a charity/outreach department where they essentially give away free ****. So why is it okay for us to donate our funds to be redistributed in church, but evil and slavery if we have government programs that do it on a larger scale?

Again, rhetorical. These are not my beliefs, they are just positions to ponder.

I am well aware of the economic theories on subsidies, welfare, inefficiency, etc.

A am also aware of a potentially slippery slope towards Socialism and the disincentive it creates for would-be innovators - who are integral to increasing the quality of life for everyone.

[asiseeit]

1. What % of the population would you consider as critical thinkers? Maybe 10 ?
2. Your chart needs a couple more headings - far left and Marxist, then shift everything left 1-2 columns
3. After the last 4 years of 24/7 Trump bashing a critical thinker should conclude the establishment
will stop at nothing, including rigging an election, to get him out
4. We absolutely have to have an election process with impeccable integrity and the LEFT has destroyed
our current one
5. Clinton was an okay president only because of Newt's contract for America and a Republican congress that guided him
his second term
6. This country won't be united any time soon

[ShockingButTrue]

Does anybody want to go on a journey of truth with me? The only stipulations are that you arrive to the party ideologically naked, you don't attack others for their statements, and you do your best to form your comments rationally.

I will use wufan's comment about agency as a basis for my first submission into the Shockernet reality workbook.

Democrats are big proponents of government "safety nets".

Republicans have called that "modern day slavery" and nothing more than a way for a political party to sow seeds for votes to be harvested later.

Could it be that Democrats' efforts are virtuous as a whole and they are just trying to help poor people?

This is a rhetorical question; I'm clearly not looking for anybody to answer. It's beyond the scope of our discussion. But just imagine for a moment if Democrats mean what they say, and that "poor people deserve help from the better off".

I mean, it's not a totally foreign concept. Jesus himself preached that continuously in the New Testament. Most of our churches today have a charity/outreach department where they essentially give away free ****. So why is it okay for us to donate our funds to be redistributed in church, but evil and slavery if we have government programs that do it on a larger scale?

Again, rhetorical. These are not my beliefs, they are just positions to ponder.

I am well aware of the economic theories on subsidies, welfare, inefficiency, etc.

A am also aware of a potentially slippery slope towards Socialism and the disincentive it creates for would-be innovators - who are integral to increasing the quality of life for everyone.

What a stupid, at best, and totally disingenuous premise. Couldn't you have at least submitted something as intelligent as the China Virus is your President's fault? Or maybe the current politically tense atmosphere is caused by the insensitivities of talk radio. Oh, wait...

Voted for Miit, eh? The fiber of your hypothesis really supports your credibility. ; D

In case you need a translation because you've been hittin' the pipe again:

[C0|dB|00ded]

1. What % of the population would you consider as critical thinkers? Maybe 10 ?
2. Your chart needs a couple more headings - far left and Marxist, then shift everything left 1-2 columns
3. After the last 4 years of 24/7 Trump bashing a critical thinker should conclude the establishment
will stop at nothing, including rigging an election, to get him out
4. We absolutely have to have an election process with impeccable integrity and the LEFT has destroyed
our current one
5. Clinton was an okay president only because of Newt's contract for America and a Republican congress that guided him
his second term
6. This country won't be united any time soon

You're right, Newt played a big part in the balanced budget. But do you think similar agreements could be reached in today's climate? The president and his Democrats at the time had to play ball.

[C0|dB|00ded]

What a stupid, at best, and totally disingenuous premise. Couldn't you have at least submitted something as intelligent as the China Virus is your President's fault? Or maybe the current politically tense atmosphere is caused by the insensitivities of talk radio. Oh, wait...

Voted for Miit, eh? The fiber of your hypothesis really supports your credibility. ; D

In case you need a translation because you've been hittin' the pipe again:

I can't even tell at this point if what you wrote was entirely English. It looks like English words but... incomprehensible.

You forgot to put the part about me liking KU.

Do you even know who I am?

[pie n eye]

C0|dB|00ded

I wish you the best of luck in your efforts but sadly I think you are wasting your time trying to have a rational discussion here. Maybe I’m wrong.

[pinstripers]

he's giving a lecture, not attempting a discussion

[atlwsu]

Another interesting point about reality:

I've talked to many Republicans who will admit today that Bill Clinton was a great president. In fact, Bill Clinton may be the greatest president next to Ronald Reagan over the last 40 years. If you take Bill's balanced budget and Reagan's deficit spending, Bill might be a better Republican than Ronnie too. But I digress...

What did we end up doing to Bill Clinton? We impeached him for lying about a blowjob. Then those same people that burned Clinton at the stake, turned around and unanimously voted for Donald Trump; a legendary philanderer who pays off porn stars to keep them quiet. I mean... reality folks. This is what I'm talking about. It was the Rush Limbaugh's that told us to burn Clinton at the stake, but to elect Trump. Did you know that Rush has been friends with Trump for like 20 years?

Everything is not, as it seems...

I rarely comment on this stuff and know I shouldn't but I cannot help myself.

Some comments before I editorialize.
1) I have only listened to 10 minutes of Hannity and even less of Limbaugh.
2) I am fiscally conservative, personally socially conservative but politically socially closer to moderate.
3) Christian (from head to foot) in my world view without a post modern bone in my body.
4) I read 4/5 hours per day. Get most of my news from NPR, Reuters and AP and some opinion from Wall Street Journal and The Federalist.
5) I traveled in Europe frequently during the Clinton impeachment. My European colleagues, as you, thought it was over sex. Infidelity is not impeachable (although if one will not keep a commitment that personal there is not likely any commitment they would keep). Political lying is not impeachable. For the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the USA to lie under oath is inexcusable. Even at that I thought censure was a better alternative.
6) Uninfluenced thought does not exist. Good luck with your independence.

Now for my editorial comment (& I hate being polemic): Most people that think as simply as you don't write as well as you. You have a unique ability to repeat yourself in an amazing assortment of ways. So many words, so little said. I do love reading your comments and the reaction you get, usually amusing.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I rarely comment on this stuff and know I shouldn't but I cannot help myself.

Some comments before I editorialize.
1) I have only listened to 10 minutes of Hannity and even less of Limbaugh.
2) I am fiscally conservative, personally socially conservative but politically socially closer to moderate.
3) Christian (from head to foot) in my world view without a post modern bone in my body.
4) I read 4/5 hours per day. Get most of my news from NPR, Reuters and AP and some opinion from Wall Street Journal and The Federalist.
5) I traveled in Europe frequently during the Clinton impeachment. My European colleagues, as you, thought it was over sex. Infidelity is not impeachable (although if one will not keep a commitment that personal there is not likely any commitment they would keep). Political lying is not impeachable. For the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the USA to lie under oath is inexcusable. Even at that I thought censure was a better alternative.
6) Uninfluenced thought does not exist. Good luck with your independence.

Now for my editorial comment (& I hate being polemic): Most people that think as simply as you don't write as well as you. You have a unique ability to repeat yourself in an amazing assortment of ways. So many words, so little said. I do love reading your comments and the reaction you get, usually amusing.

I guess. I'll.. say.... thanks?

So many words, so little said indeed!

Irony PLUS projection? What a delightful combination.

I pulled one pearl from your post that I believe is applicable to the subject matter at hand: "uninfluenced thought does not exist"

I agree with this, but what I am pondering is if we can "disinfect" or "wean" the average citizen's mind of egregious propagandist twisting allowing a more disciplined and comprehensive account of the facts at hand, versus the spoon-feeding of today's unoriginal headline narratives - which then get disseminated across the various social media platforms (including here) until they are Group Think ---- BY reforming the current media culture.

Don't ask me how we do it. What was Obama threatening years ago with respect to censoring or reclassifying conservative talk radio?

[ShockingButTrue]

It looks like English words but... incomprehensible.

You forgot to put the part about me liking KU.

Do you even know who I am?

Couldn't put the pipe down huh? What a shocker, or did all those ass whoopings in the bars with your non-mask wearing friends give you a touch of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy because it's pretty obvious your mom never whipped your a**. That's who you are (take it easy there my humorous and loyal Shocker fan buddy, I'm just pulling your leg)...

Read this slowly: You're. Full. Of. Sh**. That. Lacks. Any. Fiber. Whatsoever (hence the turd). You're welcome. Any time you need a clarification just ask and I will oblige, because I can put it more than one way. I'll even keep it short and sweet.

And I don't think I need to add that late night at the phog gives you a boner every time I post do I? It's pretty obvious. But if you want me to... ; D

Maybe it's you buddy.

comprehension.jpg

En' garde.

[Kung Wu]

So why is it okay for us to donate our funds to be redistributed in church, but evil and slavery if we have government programs that do it on a larger scale?

As to the former: Because churches do it efficiently, and the people donating often take part in the allocation of the funds. Bureaucrats pledge to tax for one thing and then squander and/or spend the taxes on something completely different (often themselves).

As to the latter ... just ask Thomas Sowell:

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children [78%] being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent [66%]. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

The unintended consequences of liberal ideology is stunningly bad for impoverished black folks (and all other impoverished races to boot). It's been demonstrated time and time again.

[ShockingButTrue]

C0|dB|00ded

I wish you the best of luck in your efforts but sadly I think you are wasting your time trying to have a rational discussion here. Maybe I’m wrong.

It's more like a 'let's all play along that the dems are good-hearted and morally superior' discussion. No thanks. No offense meant pie.

I'm not gonna' let that insufferable dingle-berry Cold get me started on Clinton's 'innovative' financial deregulation policies, the exemption of credit-default swaps to liability being just one example (one wonders how much Dick pocketed for that bit of legislation), of which we still feel the ramifications; but boy did it make a host of foreign investors rich. That's just for starters as far as Clinton goes.

And Churches don't enact legislation to money in the basket, in other words, without ones consent. Cold doesn't intuit that because he's a climate change acolyte atheist, who's claimed as much.

Cold can't comprehend when I reply to his inane recitations so could you relay this message to him please?

[wufan]

As to the former: Because churches do it efficiently, and the people donating often take part in the allocation of the funds. Bureaucrats pledge to tax for one thing and then squander and/or spend the taxes on something completely different (often themselves).

As to the latter ... just ask Thomas Sowell:



The unintended consequences of liberal ideology is stunningly bad for impoverished black folks (and all other impoverished races to boot). It's been demonstrated time and time again.

I agree with this. It’s easy to give money to government or national/international charities and feel like you did your part in making the world a better place. It’s much harder, but much better managed, when you give money/time locally and see first hand where your efforts have succeed and where they have failed.