Republican Morality

[theliq]

Why do republicans hate the poor but love the rich?

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13

What can one make of the statements below?

"If you're low-income...in many states you can qualify for Medicaid, you can qualify for food stamps, you can qualify for housing assistance, [even] if you're in poverty...That is not a healthy thing for children, it's not a healthy thing for society...Suffering, if you're a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And it's not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life...There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and there's another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope." Rick

"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal." ¶ "You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school. They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they came in? What if you paid them to work as the assistant librarian? And I'd pay them as early as is reasonable and practical. ¶ "I am prepared to find something that works, that breaks us out of the cycles we're involved in right now, and finding a way for poor children to learn how to work and learning how to have money that they've earned honestly is an integral part of that." Newt

Note to Rick and Newt's mom, Mrs Mom you raised an awful child.

Who was it that said the past is never past. They missed Newt.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

You should know by now that you should NEVER used the words "REPUBLICAN and MORALITY" in the same sentence.....just saying theliq

 

[JoeB131]

i think the problem here is you fail to understand the difference between charity and coercion.

When I choose to give to a charity, it is a charity of my choice, which I know will do good work. I look at ones that have low overhead and a history of good work.

WHen the government takes 30% of my income and gives it to people who want to sit around all day, make babies and vote for Democrats, that isn't my choice, and it's a pretty terrible idea.

Reminds me of a joke I am sure we have all heard:

Obama and Romney were walking down the street and they came across a homeless man sitting on the sidewalk. Romney pulled $50 out of his pocket and said to the man "go get something to eat and get a room at the YMCA around the corner. Then come by my office tomorrow at noon and I will give you a job so that you can get back on your feet." Obama was incredibly impressed and as they walked some more they ran into another homeless man. Obama reached into Romney's pocket, pulled out $50, kept $30 of it as an administrative fee, handed the man a $20 and said "Burger King is across the street and the welfare office is around the corner. Vote for me and there's more where that came from."

That's the difference between Republican charity and liberal charity.

Funny joke, except that if Mitt Romney were involved, the HOmeless guy would be saying, "Hey, you're the Mormon scumbag who closed down my factory and foreclosed on my house!"

 

[JoeB131]

Again your comment does not address the premise of the opinion piece, but since we entered this area I'll reply with a more rational explanation. Did you read my link?

Charity is charity, coercion is irrelevant here. Because you have this connection in your mind/brain/thoughts that government is taking your money and giving it to some lazy slob, you can engage in this irrational reasoning. But even a second of your time to think, would demonstrate your taxes go to lots of things, many of which you use everyday - even this medium we are debating on. I know perfectly well what coercion is, and I know what the government does with my taxes - my charity and my taxes have no connection. Are all my taxes well spent - that could open a Pandora's box of items wasteful and inefficient but again irrelevant to charity.

I have that connection because that's what I've seen in my life. I've seen what I call the "Entitlement mentality", and the first biggest problem with the welfare state is that we call them "entitlements", as though you are entitled to something just for being here. We should call it what it is, "charity". If you are unemployed, and someone is paying to feed you, it is charity, and there is an obligation on your part to get out of that situation. But we have a welfare state where we have four generations of welfare collectors, and that's part of the problem.

"HE suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form- the belief that the world owes you a living." - Robert A. Heinlein.

Your comment is racist code too, are you aware of that? See the quote below. I know everyone will say this is the race card, but you know what calling a spade, a spade is, right? Thanks though, I'm still waiting for a real challenge but you gave it a shot.

If you can point out where I said something "racist", please point out where I said something racist. I pointed out a mentality- that we have a group of people who ride in the wagon without pulling it at any point, and they are just fine with that.

Now I do expect that there are times when we have to ride in the wagon, and that is when we are too old or too young to effectively help pull it. But most liberalism works on the assumption that the wagon doesn't need pulling, and that if someone is pulling it, they need to be hit just a little bit harder.

JoeB131,

Here's another example of stereotypical thinking, BluePhantom calls me a "she," I'll let you figure out why - but consider Si Modo is a she, does she take offense at his use? Does she see it? Does she understand it? Do you?

mc5

Honestly, I try to figure out what the gender of the people I talk to are, based on their screen names or avatar, but I don't really know for sure. One can assume safely that "JoeB131" is a guy. In that I'm a Joseph and not a JoAnn. If someone is not clear, I assume a "he" until corrected.

If I make an incorrect assumption about the gender of a poster, and they correct me, that's the end of the matter for me. I apologize and move on. Not seeing your point here.

 

[midcan5]

Regarding language and coding, look to the source of the code for an explanation of its purpose and intent. Code is not created instantaneously, it develops over time and often grows more sophisticated with time. And consider too that while you may read something one way, another person will hear something else. Look only at the avatars on this site, or the tea party signs, or the growth of hate groups since 2008. This too should be obvious to anyone with an open (inquisitive) mind.

What does the lesbian joke say about a person in the context of political debate?

If I had started with a polite discussion it would have gone where? Am I not allowed the same hyperbolic use of language the right throws around and has thrown around since the more intelligent republicans and conservatives disappeared long ago? If I had started nicely you'd agree? Hardly, as not one republican disagreed with their presidential candidates words. Being honest with oneself is often the hardest thought.

Why even assume gender, find out or use (s)he.


"Self-criticism is the secret weapon of democracy." Adlai Stevenson

 

[Unkotare]

If I had started with a polite discussion it would have gone where?

You mean if you hadn't started with a deliberately false premise, you dishonest fuck?

 

[BluePhantom]

Regarding language and coding, look to the source of the code for an explanation of its purpose and intent. Code is not created instantaneously, it develops over time and often grows more sophisticated with time. And consider too that while you may read something one way, another person will hear something else. Look only at the avatars on this site, or the tea party signs, or the growth of hate groups since 2008. This too should be obvious to anyone with an open (inquisitive) mind.

What this tells me is that you are looking for racism where none exists.

What does the lesbian joke say about a person in the context of political debate?

Well if you are referring to my signature it means "ha ha ha...have a fucking sense of humor"

If I had started with a polite discussion it would have gone where?

Probably politely

Am I not allowed the same hyperbolic use of language the right throws around and has thrown around since the more intelligent republicans and conservatives disappeared long ago?

Sure if you are looking for a fight. Hey I have started threads with inflammatory language before and I did so because I was picking a fight. Other threads I have started with cooler language because I was interested in having a discussion. In both cases I got what I was looking for. In this thread, you picked a fight.

If I had started nicely you'd agree? Hardly, as not one republican disagreed with their presidential candidates words. Being honest with oneself is often the hardest thought.

No but I would disagree with you respectfully instead of telling you to shove it up your ass

Why even assume gender, find out or use (s)he.

Oh now you are bitching just to bitch.

 

[Si modo]

Regarding language and coding, look to the source of the code for an explanation of its purpose and intent. Code is not created instantaneously, it develops over time and often grows more sophisticated with time. And consider too that while you may read something one way, another person will hear something else. Look only at the avatars on this site, or the tea party signs, or the growth of hate groups since 2008. This too should be obvious to anyone with an open (inquisitive) mind.

What does the lesbian joke say about a person in the context of political debate?

If I had started with a polite discussion it would have gone where? Am I not allowed the same hyperbolic use of language the right throws around and has thrown around since the more intelligent republicans and conservatives disappeared long ago? If I had started nicely you'd agree? Hardly, as not one republican disagreed with their presidential candidates words. Being honest with oneself is often the hardest thought.

Why even assume gender, find out or use (s)he.


"Self-criticism is the secret weapon of democracy." Adlai Stevenson

Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

 

[midcan5]

What this tells me is that you are looking for racism where none exists.

Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

You assume you know something about me but never, never address the fundamental issue of the OP. Hide your heads in the sand but the point of the OP stands unopposed.

And I guess this guy is discussing...what is he discussing?

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy

 

[Sky Dancer]

Regarding language and coding, look to the source of the code for an explanation of its purpose and intent. Code is not created instantaneously, it develops over time and often grows more sophisticated with time. And consider too that while you may read something one way, another person will hear something else. Look only at the avatars on this site, or the tea party signs, or the growth of hate groups since 2008. This too should be obvious to anyone with an open (inquisitive) mind.

What does the lesbian joke say about a person in the context of political debate? If I had started with a polite discussion it would have gone where? Am I not allowed the same hyperbolic use of language the right throws around and has thrown around since the more intelligent republicans and conservatives disappeared long ago? If I had started nicely you'd agree? Hardly, as not one republican disagreed with their presidential candidates words. Being honest with oneself is often the hardest thought.

Why even assume gender, find out or use (s)he.


"Self-criticism is the secret weapon of democracy." Adlai Stevenson

What do rape jokes say about our society?

 

[Si modo]

What this tells me is that you are looking for racism where none exists.

Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

You assume you know something about me but never, never address the fundamental issue of the OP. ....

Oh, but I did address your OP. It is based on a false premise. That's all there is to say about much of anything based on a false premise.

You can cry about it all you want, though.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Racism exists. Republicans deny it.

 

[Si modo]

Racism exists. Republicans deny it.

Really? I deny that racism exists?

Who knew?

Tell me more about me, Sky.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Racism exists. Republicans deny it.

Really? I deny that racism exists?

Who knew?

Tell me more about me, Sky.

Quote: Originally Posted by Si modo
Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

 

[Si modo]

Racism exists. Republicans deny it.

Really? I deny that racism exists?

Who knew?

Tell me more about me, Sky.

Quote: Originally Posted by Si modo
Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

Uh huh.

What has you confused?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Really? I deny that racism exists?

Who knew?

Tell me more about me, Sky.

Quote: Originally Posted by Si modo
Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

Uh huh.

What has you confused?

It sounds like a putdown of midcan. Am I right?

 

[theliq]

"Would not" not "Could not".

And those who cannot are those who need the safety net. Again. The widowed, elderly, infirm, and children.

We have programs for those people who can not. Welfare is designed for the people who will not. Those who truly can not should be in a facility.

Warehousing people is your solution?

I'm 53. If I reach a certain point and I'm indigent - in your mind, no SSI, right? Just - either stick me on an ice floe and ship me off to sea, or send me to the poor house? Is that how you see life unfolding for America's elderly?

Boop,you are NOT elderly,you are a fiesty America Cutie,with intelligencesteven

 

[Si modo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Si modo
Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

Uh huh.

What has you confused?

It sounds like a putdown of midcan. Am I right?

Uh huh.

And, what does that have to do with your saying, "Republicans deny racism" and my telling you I don't?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Uh huh.

What has you confused?

It sounds like a putdown of midcan. Am I right?

Uh huh.

And, what does that have to do with your saying, "Republicans deny racism" and my telling you I don't?

I don't like your putdown of midcan. I get the impression from it, that you don't understand racism. At the very least, you don't understand midcan's posts.

 

[Si modo]

It sounds like a putdown of midcan. Am I right?

Uh huh.

And, what does that have to do with your saying, "Republicans deny racism" and my telling you I don't?

I don't like your putdown of midcan. I get the impression from it, that you don't understand racism.

That's fine. I'm not too concerned about what posters like or don't like.

I am concerned with idiotic rationales. I am concerned with lies. I am concerned with facts. Without accuracy, I cannot make a rational decision.

So, when someone says their OP hasn't been addressed, and it has been repeatedly addressed, they are lying. When someone presents something as fact and they have a false or unsupported premise, I say something.

But, when someone is obtuse, deliberately or not, I definitely say something.

I would imagine you would know this about me by now.

So, IF midcan WERE interested in some sort of honest discussion, midcan WOULD either support his premise or try again, excluding the false premise. That would be the honest thing to do.

In my experience, the lack of honesty here is consistent posting by midcan.

 

[BluePhantom]

What this tells me is that you are looking for racism where none exists.

Everyone knows those who refer to an imaginary 'code' of language for racism are simply trying to deny their latent racism.

You assume you know something about me but never, never address the fundamental issue of the OP. Hide your heads in the sand but the point of the OP stands unopposed.

And I guess this guy is discussing...what is he discussing?

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy

I have addressed your OP over and over and over. You just ignore everything I say and repeat your "******" quote as if saying it repeatedly gives you more credibility.