The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='camoor']You haven't been able to give me one example of an innovative policy to help the poor that Christian Conservatives have initiated.

So why do you put the word 'reforming' in double quotes? Is that fundie doublespeak for defunding?[/QUOTE]

Reforming was in quotes because he doesn't seem to realize that noone is saying we should budget $0 dollars to welfare, medicare, or social security. People want reform of these programs so that they are more efficient. Throwing money at them has not solved the problem yet, and it won't either.

As for examples of innovative policies, you know them as well as I do. However you disagree with the entire ideology so there is no point in me naming off examples so that you can shoot each and every one of them down because I already know you disagree with them.

Here is one though: Decrease dependency on welfare by creating programs that help people get back to work, not paying people to stay home. Require drug tests to provide incentives to get clean.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This is convieniently one of the posts that should be flipped around and applied to yourselves.[/QUOTE]
Wahhh you hurt my feelings "whines some more".:roll:
 
[quote name='Knoell']Here is one though: Decrease dependency on welfare by creating programs that help people get back to work, not paying people to stay home.[/QUOTE]

That's not a policy that's a goal.

[quote name='Knoell']Require drug tests to provide incentives to get clean.[/QUOTE]

I thought you wanted to save money, not waste it.
 
I'm sure what Knoell means is "creating programs" = move to a contingency based welfare program. That is, some kind of boring "prove that you're looking for work or we stop cutting checks."

Which shows that he grossly misunderstands the nature of welfare payments, the idea of welfare, as well as the vastly-off-the-mark projection that the economic crisis is a problem of supply and not of demand. Companies are sitting on resources and not spending them.

So we do nothing to spurn demand, cut people from welfare programs (decreasing demand further), and use those savings (from not cutting welfare checks) to blow entirely on invasive, useless, pointless drug tests (which might find a few positives, but not enough to offset the expenditure in terms of testing and gov't resources - in other words, a whole new agency and positions to give those tests).

So let's do nothing for spending and depress demand (what we need) further.

Solid idea.

Let's drug test everyone instead. Your tax rate doubles if you test positive. There's a policy for you. How about it, Knoell? If we want to justify ones' worth by "drug user or not," then let's not stop with your phantom Reagan era welfare queens.
 
In the long term the poor being less dependent on drugs will benefit society and lower costs, but lets keep thinking inside the box, and give them checks to last them month to month. It is REALLY working, really! It isn't at all making them become complacent, no, not at all. Really.

As for mykevermins simplistic understanding of why drug testing is important, I don't know what to say. If you think it is about someones worth, then you got us. We are all about taking people down a notch, those smug assholes, we don't at all want to help the poor who are in an endless cycle of self destruction. After all, its their decision right? We can't have people smoking E cigarettes, its the governments job to stop that, but it is just a step too far when the government tells people if you want help, you have to clean up right?

And also I wonder why companies are sitting on resources, go poll a few and find out. I bet raising their tax rates will get em to start spending eh? The economy is crappy, and we are 1) doing all the wrong things to fix it and 2) demonizing everything that would fix it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've spoke personally with companies who've told me the demand isn't there for their product. Some companies the demand hasn't really changed, but for a lot of them the demand went way down.
 
[quote name='Knoell']In the long term the poor being less dependent on drugs will benefit society and lower costs, but lets keep thinking inside the box, and give them checks to last them month to month. It is REALLY working, really! It isn't at all making them become complacent, no, not at all. Really.

As for mykevermins simplistic understanding of why drug testing is important, I don't know what to say. If you think it is about someones worth, then you got us. We are all about taking people down a notch, those smug assholes, we don't at all want to help the poor who are in an endless cycle of self destruction. After all, its their decision right? We can't have people smoking E cigarettes, its the governments job to stop that, but it is just a step too far when the government tells people if you want help, you have to clean up right?[/quote]

The idea that drugs = a problem of the poor is where you're woefully mistaken (and classist to boot). Also where your thinking is deeply undercooked, if you think that this will solve any kind of exigent spending on the government end. It's a feel-good, fuck-those-welfare-queens, entertaining solution. But not an adequate one. I have a corner market a block and a half from my house. The other week a couple was in there buying a gallon of iced tea (really? can't brew your own?) with an access card (welfare), then bought two lotto tickets with cash. I was pissed. Still am, for sure. But the tax money spent (or not spent) on that iced tea is a drop in the bucket compared to corporate welfare, to tax loopholes, and to the military and/or prison-industrial complexes.

I don't disagree with you, but if the foundation of a house is falling apart, I'm more interested in having a conversation about how to fix the foundation than what to use to re-grout the tile in the bathroom. Dig?

Actually, I do disagree with you on the drug testing proposition. A fine facebook group, but stupid and completely cost ineffective policy. But, sure, welfare reform would be a fine discussion to have way down the line. I'm into genuine policy solutions, not feel-good-fuck-the-poor solutions that do very little. So I'd rather talk about how to reduce real government spending.

And also I wonder why companies are sitting on resources, go poll a few and find out. I bet raising their tax rates will get em to start spending eh? The economy is crappy, and we are 1) doing all the wrong things to fix it and 2) demonizing everything that would fix it.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what "demand-side problem" means. Companies spending the money they are sitting on doesn't immediately translate into greater sales. Demand is flexible, honeypot, and when it's low, the answer is not tax cuts. Putting more food on your plate doesn't solve the problem when you're not hungry.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

You don't understand what "demand-side problem" means. Companies spending the money they are sitting on doesn't immediately translate into greater sales. Demand is flexible, honeypot, and when it's low, the answer is not tax cuts. Putting more food on your plate doesn't solve the problem when you're not hungry.[/QUOTE]

And you don't understand that companies will not expand and hire people to spend money until they feel confident that the government isnt so unpredictable. Not to mention, businesses do not build up large amounts of money because they arent doing enough business. The companies that are holding tons of capital are not the ones who need more money because of the lack of demand.

If I am a small business, I am sitting around waiting to see if I will be taxed at A% or B% because if I hire another person and expand, and pay a higher tax rate, I won't have the income that I have planned for my business. Could I get away with it? Probably, but it decreases incentives to grow.


For medium to large companies multiply that by 1,000. You guys all keep shouting "end corporate welfare" which is fine with me, oil subsidies first, but companies are exactly that, companies and are accounting for the worst case scenario.

I almost which we would stop arguing and take away whatever subsidies you want, just so that companies will get over it and start spending and investing whatever they can. However we are dealing with two stubborn sides unwilling to make cuts to each others ideals.
 
[quote name='Knoell']For medium to large companies multiply that by 1,000. You guys all keep shouting "end corporate welfare" which is fine with me, oil subsidies first, but companies are exactly that, companies and are accounting for the worst case scenario.[/QUOTE]

It's almost vogue for conservatives to say that we should not be surprised by the extreme and outrageous lengths a company will go through to earn profit. Yet these same folks are completely slack-jawed when a politician proves that he will do anything to remain in office.

We have to hold companies accountable for their actions. If that means ratcheting down the law on them, then it means ratcheting down the law. If that means more regulation and more checking up, that means more regulation and more checking up. If that means making the top one-thousandth percentile pay a greater tax percentage and salary caps, that means making the top one-thousandth percentile pay a greater tax percentage and salary caps.

The definition of captitaism is not 'America is a big pussy that gets fucked by corporate titans' (look it up if you don't believe me)
 
[quote name='nasum']RE: DMV
Seemingly mostly effects rural areas which are predominantly (R) anyways?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter to me. It's absurd to require photo ID which not everyone has, and then close locations and make it harder for some to get photo IDs regardless of which party's constituency is most effected.
 
The ID's are free and voters in WI still have over a year to get their hands on one. I don't see what the problem is. You need an ID to buy white out or cough syrup but not to vote? That's absurd.
 
I don't have a problem with requiring IDs as long as they're free and they are easy to get. Closing locations in rural areas can lead to people with little money for gas etc. having to drive a good ways to find a place to get one. And even more hassle for people who don't drive and have to rely on others for rides.

My preference would just be to have some kind of national ID (or just passports) that everyone could get for free, and just apply for at the post office like passports currently.

Then everyone has a free ID, and most everyone has a relatively close place to get one since post offices are much more prevalent than the DMV.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The ID's are free and voters in WI still have over a year to get their hands on one. I don't see what the problem is. You need an ID to buy white out or cough syrup but not to vote? That's absurd.[/QUOTE]

Why? A good number of people do anything they can to get the former because drug addicts will abuse them. There's a problem with people using and abusing those things which leads to crime. Hence, it has lead to the necessity of those laws.

No one is fiending to commit voter fraud. It's just about non existent. Most people treat it like jury duty. If you put obstacles in the way, people will just say 'eff it' and you'll get fewer people involved in this civic duty...which is just what the GOP wants.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/science/earth/28enviro.html?_r=1&hp

Republicans now tying the environment to the debt ceiling. I think we all knew it was coming...but the demands they make are insane. New new wild life preserves may be created, new new animals or plants allowed to be put on the endangered species list, less policing of blastop mining and the abilty to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon preserve.[/QUOTE]

The fact that someone could vote for these people. What a fucked up situation.
 
Hell just had that idiot in my topic today talking about how Repubs dont do shit like this. Had Broly the other day talking about how Dems are the ones walking away and doing things like this. Again showing people will just justify whatever they have to.
 
Whatev, politicians have been called names since time immemorial. Or something. I'm above it all. I don't speculate. Ever. Both sides are exactly the same in every way. Let's move on.

Srsly, I'm looking forward to the how this guys statement is defended.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Whatev, politicians have been called names since time immemorial. Or something. I'm above it all. I don't speculate. Ever. Both sides are exactly the same in every way. Let's move on.

Srsly, I'm looking forward to the how this guys statement is defended.[/QUOTE]

Well if you look at it in context he did use it properly....its just that with Obama even if it was used in a non racist way its faaaaar too easy to take it wrong. Even if it was not racist it shows a very big lack of common sense and racial sensitivity.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Well if you look at it in context he did use it properly....its just that with Obama even if it was used in a non racist way its faaaaar too easy to take it wrong. Even if it was not racist it shows a very big lack of common sense and racial sensitivity.[/QUOTE]

So he's either an asshole or a moron?
 
I saw that last night. You know each time I have given these conservatives the benefit of the doubt since they have used it in a non racial way. However each of these slips is highly suspect and now it happening yet again has me wondering. Are these just people not thinking about what they are saying, are these Freudian slips or is this something greater? I really hate playing the racism card against anyone...but Christ they are using horribly insensitive terms so god damn frequently.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I saw that last night. You know each time I have given these conservatives the benefit of the doubt since they have used it in a non racial way. However each of these slips is highly suspect and now it happening yet again has me wondering. Are these just people not thinking about what they are saying, are these Freudian slips or is this something greater? I really hate playing the racism card against anyone...but Christ they are using horribly insensitive terms so god damn frequently.[/QUOTE]
Pat Buchanan is pretty much known for being a racist POS. Conservatives in general expouse and parrot very racist policies. Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt at all? Did you ever hear some one say, "Your/Our boy, Bush/Reagan/McCain etc? Of course not!

It's not a fucking slip. It's a goddamn dog whistle. It's not black people being too sensitive, it's white people acting racist. Pretty simple!
 
It's not coincidental, it's not a "slip," but it's not necessarily the kind of consciously-thought racism some people must think it has to be to call it as such.

It's so ingrained, as you suggest, into the minds of certain people, that they have racist elements of their approach to society in their mind, but they do not believe them to be racist.

I'm sure that some people will respond to Sharpton by saying he relies on calling out racism to have a career, he's oversensitive, he manufactures racism where it doesn't exist, etc. When people use this as an opportunity to make Buchanan the victim and Sharpton the person worthy of derision, the person worthy of insults - when they place Buchanan on a pedestal and push Sharpton down where they think he belongs - *then* you will see the power of covert racism in modern American society. It's so covert the people who enforce racial order don't see that they're doing it.

Mark Halperin was suspended from msnbc for saying Obama acted like a "dick" several weeks back. Buchanan has served the role of msnbc's foghorn leghorn, saying preposterously racist things every chance he gets (just a week ago he said Anders Brevik "was right" to be paranoid of militant Islam) - and he will suffer no consequences.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Pat Buchanan is pretty much known for being a racist POS. Conservatives in general expouse and parrot very racist policies. Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt at all? Did you ever hear some one say, "Your/Our boy, Bush/Reagan/McCain etc? Of course not!

It's not a fucking slip. It's a goddamn dog whistle. It's not black people being too sensitive, it's white people acting racist. Pretty simple![/QUOTE]

I think any you mentioned in your example would be considered "good ol' boys"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Mark Halperin was suspended from msnbc for saying Obama acted like a "dick" several weeks back. Buchanan has served the role of msnbc's foghorn leghorn, saying preposterously racist things every chance he gets (just a week ago he said Anders Brevik "was right" to be paranoid of militant Islam) - and he will suffer no consequences.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't suspend either of them for saying those things.

However, I think you're right to point out the disparity in reactions. One is much more abhorrent then the other and it gets a pass from the bosses.
 
Buchanan has said much that deserves more than a suspension.

Calling Obama a "dick" is just teeming with anti-intellectualism. I expect to hear that on Hannity, not msnbc.

Oh, wait, they're too smart to say "dick." They just say "socialist." Same diff.
 
[quote name='nasum']I think any you mentioned in your example would be considered "good ol' boys"[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between calling someone you depise "your boy" and being called a "good ole boy."

One is collegial and one is juvenilism. Which do you think is which?
 
doh doh are you black? It doesnt matter, just curious since you go really really really hard line when dealing with issues of race. Wondering if your a white guy/asian/mexican whatever guy that really cares about the issue or African American. Personally iv always pictured you as Mexican ;)

Edit - And btw while I do think these guys are most likely racist as fuck, I just believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this. Now I am sure if we look at their voting records it would be a different story.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']doh doh are you black? It doesnt matter, just curious since you go really really really hard line when dealing with issues of race. Wondering if your a white guy/asian/mexican whatever guy that really cares about the issue or African American. Personally iv always pictured you as Mexican ;)

Edit - And btw while I do think these guys are most likely racist as fuck, I just believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this. Now I am sure if we look at their voting records it would be a different story.[/QUOTE]
Just to be dickish, I prefer to leave those boxes unchecked in the vs. forum. It helps to serve a point that I can't make IRL: that our socialized biases shape the way we look at -isms and how we view the people that fight against/fight for them. Yeah, its kinda of weak and a cheap way to score points, but whatevs.:lol:

If you really need to know, you can feel free to parse through posting history to find out though. :D
 
Meh you are you so I really am not that concerned with it, it was just a curiosity. What you say not what demographic you fit in to shapes my view of you. Its just that the view of you had went so strongly in one direction I had to wonder if race played any role in it or not.
 
What kills me is that Buchanan is like MSNBC's token conservative. I assume he's there to quiet the accusation that they're liberally biased. Hell, the closest liberal equivalent on fox news seems to be Shep Smith, and he seems more simply level headed than liberal. Buchanan is just a crazy old guy.
 
the conspiratorial part of me thinks that's why he stays on msnbc - he says preposterous, easily refuted racist stuff. So he's not the "token conservative" as much as he is the conservative punching bag on msnbc. The more outrageous he is, the more satisfied liberal viewers are. He wasn't hired to make sense, he was hired to be a parody.

He is, if this holds, msnbc's version of Alan Colmes. Except the punchline is that Pat Buchanan is a genuine politician with a legacy and history; Fox had to dig up a go-nowhere comedian to be a liberal punching bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top