Reply With Quote
That's what libs have been selling for years. Unfortunately, their non-neighbors (a.k.a. guaranteed voters) have been lapping that up.
Well, it didn't break down a party registration by the same area they displayed other statistics, but I found this of interest:
Oregon Mapper
I won't bother explaining the data. Just that the center section was where I delivered mail, almost to a tee. The east, west, and south of the map section were the same as my carrier route. However, north stopped at Carlton from 28th, down 32nd, and then across Tolman to 34th.
That's what libs have been selling for years. Unfortunately, their non-neighbors (a.k.a. guaranteed voters) have been lapping that up.
At least Dems aren't racist
I don't follow. Dems have been selling 'hating minorities'?
You don't think cost of living has anything to do with that?
Well Darrin has just obliterated the argument we've all been making that racist liberals don't exist anywhere. Truly the Czar of the YouTube, he.
When the meme that conservatives = racists is obliterated, so will the Dems.
What are you doing to empower minorities so one day they can afford to live alongside the Lilly white?
How many liberals lived on flaglots?
Otherwise, WC and Darrin need to figure out what the they are trying to say.
I find this less indicative of racism on anyone's part than of general stupidity.
As for "most of the left" bit, do you have some source for that, or was it something you pulled out of your ass?
You have expressed here a commonly held idea on the part of most of the "right" about what/who "the left" is in this country.
The word for this is: stereotype.
This makes your ing about the "race card", just a *bit* ironic.
"Man those Group X are too quick to use stereotyping of my Group Y. I mean you know it is only because everybody in Group X share the same common trait that makes them hypocritical."
I was definitely generalizing. But it wasn't on a whole group so I wouldn't classify it as stereotyping. Also I did add In my personal experience...
Me personally... going against affirmative action. Voting against any candidate who treats groups of people as victims and thinks welfare as we have used in this country for the past 70 years works.
More generalization.
We're not all the same. Some people do need more help than others in order to be productive members of society that end up benefiting us all. There's simply no denying that, among other things, socioeconomic factors have a huge influence in the availability of opportunities.
Sure, there's poor people that game the system, as there are super rich that game the system too. They're both s , but you simply can't pack everybody into the same bag.
I agree. I just don't see the welfare system working. Growing up in an area surrounded by people in Section 8 housing and growing up around people who either grew up with some form of welfare to seeing so many friends get trapped into it I don't see the pro's outweighing the cons. I definitely see it creating more dependency on govt money than a short term helping hand. People are smart. If they are given money to live off of for free, they will get used to that. They will also, in my experience, avoid losing that money even if it means missing out on a higher income in the future if they took low risk chances. People under the poverty level with children get free housing, food, and college, just to name a few.
Have you ever been in a welfare office? It sucks. The people there treat you very bad. They know they don't have to worry about being fired for poor customer service skills. The kids in there all have Jordans, Ipods, PSP, etc. I don't know if the fact that our 'poor' class living so well is a slap in the face or reason to celebrate. Once again this is just my experience.
I understand your frustration. I've seen both sides of the fence: people that need the welfare, be it for chronic or temporary disability, and s that make an attempt to live off it. The problem there isn't with the welfare though, but the controls that are in place or the regulations that allow the improper use of the different programs. I'm skeptic you can actually reduce the abuse to zero, but I think we could do a lot better than now.
On the other hand, removing welfare completely isn't really a solution. There's people out there with legitimate long-term or temporary needs.
But I also have to make a distinction here. Affirmative action is not welfare. It's simply a better opportunity. People don't live off affirmative action. They either take the opportunity that's given to them and make the best of it, or lose it.
I have been both in Texas and NJ actually. My experience in Texas was more embarrassing than anything, since the lady took us to an office to do the paperwork, and she started hitting on me (my wife was there with us).
As far as what the poor have, there's everything out there. I'm sure you don't get to see some of the disabled that we're also supporting and are nailed to a bed.
But ty at ude isn't just a hallmark of social security. I get treated just as bad in the local DMV, and even by the prick on the local gas station (yes, I'm in NJ, mandated full-service).
That's one thing that gets me. Why do children of welfare recipients have more than the kids of many hard working Americans?
Do they think the are en led, or something?
Do you have video or a transcript?
Because I don't buy that on a general basis, tbh.
LOL...
I've seen it too. Haven't you?
Maybe you need to visit other parts of town, outside your cozy high class Brownstone. Just see for yourself.
Is the Rio Grande Valley high class?
What you see is irrelevant. Do you have hard numbers backing up your contention or not? video? transcript?
I'm just merely setting the evidence bar no higher than you normally do.
Yeah I am not talking about disabled, except maybe ones who get labeled disabled for making themselves obese. I am also not talking about getting rid of welfare altogether. Just that I don't think it is helping the majority of people using it.I understand your frustration. I've seen both sides of the fence: people that need the welfare, be it for chronic or temporary disability, and s that make an attempt to live off it. The problem there isn't with the welfare though, but the controls that are in place or the regulations that allow the improper use of the different programs. I'm skeptic you can actually reduce the abuse to zero, but I think we could do a lot better than now.
On the other hand, removing welfare completely isn't really a solution. There's people out there with legitimate long-term or temporary needs.
But I also have to make a distinction here. Affirmative action is not welfare. It's simply a better opportunity. People don't live off affirmative action. They either take the opportunity that's given to them and make the best of it, or lose it.
I have been both in Texas and NJ actually. My experience in Texas was more embarrassing than anything, since the lady took us to an office to do the paperwork, and she started hitting on me (
As far as what the poor have, there's everything out there. I'm sure you don't get to see some of the disabled that we're also supporting and are nailed to a bed.
But ty at ude isn't just a hallmark of social security. I get treated just as bad in the local DMV, and even by the prick on the local gas station (yes, I'm in NJ, mandated full-service).
This is your statement. How much more they have? What do you base this statement on?
Supposedly $125 billion was identified as abuse. That would be a good start to investigate and stop losing that money. The question is what is actively being done about it.
That wasn't quite "abuse". That figure was more clerical errors than anything else, from what I was reading, and fully didn't encapsulate outright fraud, which the study was not designed to detect.
FAMiLY Leader Blames ‘Leftist Blog ThinkProgress’ For Having To Retract Slavery Claim From Pledge
But what happened is that the leftist blog ThinkProgress they said that what what were saying is that slavery is better for families than they are today. And that’s absurd.
Contrary to Vander Plaats’ accusations, ThinkProgress never reported that the group wanted to bring back the ins ution of slavery. We argued that the group’s contention that African American children were born into wedlock during the period of slavery was historically inaccurate. As Zack Ford wrote in a July 8 post, “slaves were property and could not be party to a contract, including a marriage contract” and were thus not legally married in the eyes of the government.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/0...m-from-pledge/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
