Thread for the "Liberals"

VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
I dont consider myself one...but have been called one enough I figured might as well make a thread for the few of "us" here. Since many threads are decidely slanted to the right, "we" can keep all out ideas and political topics neatly packed into this one thread instead of topic by topic...which often get bashed. "We" will also use it as a place for some of "our" more irreveant and non sensical rants, so please do not take it all at 100 % gospel value (I added this after my first post) .All people are of course welcome to participate, just figured this would be a nice way for "us" to advance "our" agenda....LOL. Hope this turns out civil, I do not intend it be to otherwise.
«1

Comments

  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Where were these anti-big-government "teabagger types"(or 'Tea Party Activists' if you would feel more comfortable) when the pres started a war without Congress? Where were they when the Patriot act allowed the gov't to tap phone lines w/o warrants? When president created a new class of prisoners w/o US or geneva code protections? Where were they when the modest budget surplus turned into massive deficit? And why do they keep taking SS and medicare--- "socialized" programs?
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    Hope this turns out civil, I do not intend it be to otherwise.
    Vulchor:
    Where were these anti-big-government "teabagger types"(or 'Tea Party Activists' if you would feel more comfortable)
    Oh, an ad hominem attack - that's always a good way to ensure people take you seriously. You know, people will never consider your ideas seriously unless you first insult the mothers of anyone who disagrees with you, or impute some sexual deviancy to them. You know it's gonna be a good argument when the first poster says "I don't wanna start a flame war and I wanna keep it civil, but all of you who disagree with me are a bunch of ****"
    Vulchor:
    when the pres started a war without Congress?
    Congress has the power to pay for war and technically declare it - the President has exclusive power in waging war. It's been this way since George Washington (Constitutional law precedent). The argument that Congress can control the President's foreign powers is a myth, and actually has no basis in Constitutional legal theory; Congress has the power of the purse and to cut off funds; if they do anymore, they're infringing on the Executive branches powers
    Vulchor:
    Where were they when the Patriot act allowed the gov't to tap phone lines w/o warrants?
    Actually, warrants have always been required if wire-tapping US citizens; it's only when the calls are foreign, but routed through US-based servers/centers, that a warrant isn't required (eg - Person in Saudi Arabia calls another person in Syria, but the call is routed through a US server/center - no need for a warrant since both caller and receiver are foreign). And it's not required because a warrant, under the 4th Amendment, is only to protect US citizens, not foreigners.
    Vulchor:
    When president created a new class of prisoners w/o US or geneva code protections?
    US sovereign war powers have always included holding enemy combatants indefinitely. Do you really think the Allies, in WWI or WWII took the time to give a trial to captured ****'s? No - we just held them for a few years until we got around to it at the war's end. The case law that allows the US to hold enemy prisoners indefinitely was based on US Supreme Court precedent until it was overturned.

    Now, with Obama, they're being held by a progressive president and a progressive Congress.
    Vulchor:
    Where were they when the modest budget surplus turned into massive deficit?
    There never actually was a surplus. What you're referring to is CBO's estimate/prediction, based on past data, projecting a potential surplus if certain things remained constant. CBO reached the "surplus" projection/prediction by assuming that
    1) Tax receipts, based on the boom years in the 90's, would continue forever
    2) Congressional spending would be frozen at 90's levels and wouldn't rise.

    As you can imagine, both assumptions are faulty since it's stupid to assume that the good times will continue forever, and that Congress will never increase spending.
    Vulchor:
    And why do they keep taking SS and medicare--- "socialized" programs?
    Not sure what you're complaining about - neither one of these is funded properly, and both are set to go belly-up in the next decade or two. It's simple costs vs tax revenues - they don't add up. There's just too much cost and not enough money to pay for it, so somethings gotta give. Either taxes go up to cover the cost, or benefits get slashed - either way, the money's gotta come from somewhere.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Now let me ask you something - if you have such a problem with the Gov't tapping peoples phone lines, if you don't like run-away spending, and if you don't like the holding of enemy combatants indefinitely, how do you feel about:

    1) Guantanamo still being open, despite Obama's pledge to close it?
    2) Obama's health care plan, which will use force US citizens to endorse/buy a commodity, even if they don't want to?
    3) Obama's promise that if the stimulus was passed, that unemployment wouldn't rise about 9% (original promise was unemployment would be 7 or 8% with stimulus, 9 or 10% without)? Obama just last week (in an MI speech) declared, that it's because of the stimulus that unemployment hasn't risen to 15%.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    Now let me ask you something - if you have such a problem with the Gov't tapping peoples phone lines, if you don't like run-away spending, and if you don't like the holding of enemy combatants indefinitely, how do you feel about:

    1) Guantanamo still being open, despite Obama's pledge to close it?
    2) Obama's health care plan, which will use force US citizens to endorse/buy a commodity, even if they don't want to?
    3) Obama's promise that if the stimulus was passed, that unemployment wouldn't rise about 9% (original promise was unemployment would be 7 or 8% with stimulus, 9 or 10% without)? Obama just last week (in an MI speech) declared, that it's because of the stimulus that unemployment hasn't risen to 15%.
    1. I think its a travesty on many different levels, his included

    2. I dont beleive the "if they dont want to" argument. This is used by people with money as a grandiose idea, but not applicable to the people it helps----who want insurance but cant afford it. Remember, part of health care being high is the fact of all those w/o insurance and someone having to foot the bills.

    3. That was a promise that should not have been made, because there is no way to make sure it could be kept and no way to foresee the future. This being said...we also do not know what unemployment would be now without the stimulus...possibly more.

    Also, the stimulus has created a great deeal of wealth as many corporations are making larger profits with more money now in reserve than ever...however no jobs are being created. It seemed to be an altruisitic idea gone arwry by not remembering if there is more money to be made by keeping less people to do more work----thats the way it will be done. Whats the incentive to hire someone when you can have 4 people do the work of 5, and make them aware than they can be replaced at anytime by others who need jobs and will do more than is paid for??
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Also Macro, just thowing things and ideas out there. If no one takes them seriously...thats fine, if they do thats fine too. It may be a "your mother" on my part, but I have to mix a little sarcasm, sass, degeneracy, and humor into the debate because thats how my mind works and there is too much serious $hit going on we really have no control over to take it rationally and straightfaced all the time----on every side of the isle.
  • Jetmech_63Jetmech_63 Posts: 3,454 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    2. I dont beleive the "if they dont want to" argument. This is used by people with money as a grandiose idea, but not applicable to the people it helps----who want insurance but cant afford it. Remember, part of health care being high is the fact of all those w/o insurance and someone having to foot the bills.

    Wow, that's a pretty Marxist statement(that was not an insult, nor stated with any form of malice). Whether a person can(rich) or can not(poor) afford this new healthcare plan, the standard of treatment will still be the same. If i dont want to buy into Obamacare, i shouldnt be forced to. I should be able to take my money to a health care program of my choosing for whatever reason i choose, be it a better standard of care, more appointment options, convenience etc. Thats not a "grandiose idea", it's Capitalism.

    On a semi-related tangent, i'm disgusted and insulted i am "forced" to pay into social security. I have investments, i have a retirement plan, i dont need government involvement yet they take MY money every pay day for a program(seperate of taxes) that i neither support nor approve of. It should be an option, not a mandate. We can thank FDR for that great socialist program that is now too big to go away. And it can be easily proven how SS in the next 10 years is going to become a huge detriment(like we needed another one) to the national budget.
  • TatuajeVITatuajeVI Posts: 2,378
    Businesses aren't hiring for two main reasons:
    1. They can't afford it because they aren't making money
    2. They have no clue what the new tax laws are going to be by the end of the year, due to health care reform taxes incoming, and due to the Bush tax cuts expiring. So even if a business is making money, they don't know if they are going to continue to make money in the next 6 months. So why bother hiring new people?
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,771 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Where were these anti-big-government "teabagger types"(or 'Tea Party Activists' if you would feel more comfortable) when the pres started a war without Congress? Where were they when the Patriot act allowed the gov't to tap phone lines w/o warrants? When president created a new class of prisoners w/o US or geneva code protections? Where were they when the modest budget surplus turned into massive deficit? And why do they keep taking SS and medicare--- "socialized" programs?
    Nice idea, (the thread/post/whatever you call these) I'm not sure where I fall out, conservatives think I'm Liberal, Liberal's think I'm conservative, I think there's too much finger pointing and not enough problem solving, but, in the spirit of this post, has anyone else noticed that when Bush was president Sean Hannity made daily comments that it was un-patriotic to criticize a sitting president during a time of war, (conflict/police action/nation building/oil revenue enhancement exercise), and now 90% of his daily rant consists of criticizing a sitting president during a time of war (et al)? Has to make you think, (at least, if you're capable of objective thought and not just a programmed drone who repeats daily talking points) doesn't it?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Jetmech_63:
    Vulchor:
    2. I dont beleive the "if they dont want to" argument. This is used by people with money as a grandiose idea, but not applicable to the people it helps----who want insurance but cant afford it. Remember, part of health care being high is the fact of all those w/o insurance and someone having to foot the bills.

    Wow, that's a pretty Marxist statement(that was not an insult, nor stated with any form of malice). Whether a person can(rich) or can not(poor) afford this new healthcare plan, the standard of treatment will still be the same. If i dont want to buy into Obamacare, i shouldnt be forced to. I should be able to take my money to a health care program of my choosing for whatever reason i choose, be it a better standard of care, more appointment options, convenience etc. Thats not a "grandiose idea", it's Capitalism.

    On a semi-related tangent, i'm disgusted and insulted i am "forced" to pay into social security. I have investments, i have a retirement plan, i dont need government involvement yet they take MY money every pay day for a program(seperate of taxes) that i neither support nor approve of. It should be an option, not a mandate. We can thank FDR for that great socialist program that is now too big to go away. And it can be easily proven how SS in the next 10 years is going to become a huge detriment(like we needed another one) to the national budget.
    I agree to an extent on SS.....I do not like it because your money is not going to pay for you, its paying for others right now. As the population decreases this means we will have to work longer or take lesser benefits for the money we paid in. People living into their 80's-90's and beyond didnt pay close to what they receive from SS. I dont know the best way to fix it, but that is certainly an issue I have with the system.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    TatuajeVI:
    Businesses aren't hiring for two main reasons:
    1. They can't afford it because they aren't making money
    2. They have no clue what the new tax laws are going to be by the end of the year, due to health care reform taxes incoming, and due to the Bush tax cuts expiring. So even if a business is making money, they don't know if they are going to continue to make money in the next 6 months. So why bother hiring new people?
    But in scenario #2 they are making money now. Which means they could lay off in the future if needed, I understand....but as for now that money is continuing profit.....I am not saying profit is bad, I am simply saying there is no incentive to hire, not because of what may happen in 6 months...but because they have their workers by the balls and dont need to reinvest in new hires.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    Vulchor:
    Where were these anti-big-government "teabagger types"(or 'Tea Party Activists' if you would feel more comfortable) when the pres started a war without Congress? Where were they when the Patriot act allowed the gov't to tap phone lines w/o warrants? When president created a new class of prisoners w/o US or geneva code protections? Where were they when the modest budget surplus turned into massive deficit? And why do they keep taking SS and medicare--- "socialized" programs?
    Nice idea, (the thread/post/whatever you call these) I'm not sure where I fall out, conservatives think I'm Liberal, Liberal's think I'm conservative, I think there's too much finger pointing and not enough problem solving, but, in the spirit of this post, has anyone else noticed that when Bush was president Sean Hannity made daily comments that it was un-patriotic to criticize a sitting president during a time of war, (conflict/police action/nation building/oil revenue enhancement exercise), and now 90% of his daily rant consists of criticizing a sitting president during a time of war (et al)? Has to make you think, (at least, if you're capable of objective thought and not just a programmed drone who repeats daily talking points) doesn't it?
    Agreed totally, I will save my opinions on Mr. Hannity for another day however as it is too late in the day for me to suffer indigestion and the ensuing bowel troubles.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Vulchor:
    Where were these anti-big-government "teabagger types"(or 'Tea Party Activists' if you would feel more comfortable) when the pres started a war without Congress? Where were they when the Patriot act allowed the gov't to tap phone lines w/o warrants? When president created a new class of prisoners w/o US or geneva code protections? Where were they when the modest budget surplus turned into massive deficit? And why do they keep taking SS and medicare--- "socialized" programs?
    Nice idea, (the thread/post/whatever you call these) I'm not sure where I fall out, conservatives think I'm Liberal, Liberal's think I'm conservative, I think there's too much finger pointing and not enough problem solving, but, in the spirit of this post, has anyone else noticed that when Bush was president Sean Hannity made daily comments that it was un-patriotic to criticize a sitting president during a time of war, (conflict/police action/nation building/oil revenue enhancement exercise), and now 90% of his daily rant consists of criticizing a sitting president during a time of war (et al)? Has to make you think, (at least, if you're capable of objective thought and not just a programmed drone who repeats daily talking points) doesn't it?
    Agreed totally, I will save my opinions on Mr. Hannity for another day however as it is too late in the day for me to suffer indigestion and the ensuing bowel troubles.
    isnt that the M.O. of all pundits regardless of political position?
    when their side does something it is good but if the other side does something then it is the work of Satan himself.
    i have a hard time getting worked up over pundits doing what they get paid to do.

    if problem solving is what you seek, then the calling of names will never help, but only hinder.
    I understand that you (Vulchor) have a need within you to try and keep things light and therefore use sarcasm and other tools to make you feel like you are "lightening up" the mood.
    what you fail to realize is that this sarcasm does, in fact, set people off. if it is intended or not does not matter because it does. people view this as name calling and that is where the productive and intellectual conversation stops.
    If you seek a decent debate about actual solutions sarcasm and jokes pointed at a view different than yours must be left out or you face the inevitable outcome of a mud-fight
    this name calling and sarcasm has already started in this thread so i will decline to be a further part of it even though you (Vulchor) have touched on a few topics that i agree with you 100%
    as you know, i find almost any name calling distracting.
    i hope you get out of this thread what you are looking for.
  • TheedgeTheedge Posts: 316
    Could it be that companies aren't hiring because people aren't buying their products? The gov't can give me incentives all day long, if my customers are still placing smaller orders, I sure don't need more production.

    Vulchor you mentioned an "agenda" - what is your agenda? What are you liberal about?
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,771 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kuzi16:
    Vulchor:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Vulchor:
    Where were these anti-big-government "teabagger types"(or 'Tea Party Activists' if you would feel more comfortable) when the pres started a war without Congress? Where were they when the Patriot act allowed the gov't to tap phone lines w/o warrants? When president created a new class of prisoners w/o US or geneva code protections? Where were they when the modest budget surplus turned into massive deficit? And why do they keep taking SS and medicare--- "socialized" programs?
    Nice idea, (the thread/post/whatever you call these) I'm not sure where I fall out, conservatives think I'm Liberal, Liberal's think I'm conservative, I think there's too much finger pointing and not enough problem solving, but, in the spirit of this post, has anyone else noticed that when Bush was president Sean Hannity made daily comments that it was un-patriotic to criticize a sitting president during a time of war, (conflict/police action/nation building/oil revenue enhancement exercise), and now 90% of his daily rant consists of criticizing a sitting president during a time of war (et al)? Has to make you think, (at least, if you're capable of objective thought and not just a programmed drone who repeats daily talking points) doesn't it?
    Agreed totally, I will save my opinions on Mr. Hannity for another day however as it is too late in the day for me to suffer indigestion and the ensuing bowel troubles.
    isnt that the M.O. of all pundits regardless of political position?
    when their side does something it is good but if the other side does something then it is the work of Satan himself.
    i have a hard time getting worked up over pundits doing what they get paid to do.

    if problem solving is what you seek, then the calling of names will never help, but only hinder.
    I understand that you (Vulchor) have a need within you to try and keep things light and therefore use sarcasm and other tools to make you feel like you are "lightening up" the mood.
    what you fail to realize is that this sarcasm does, in fact, set people off. if it is intended or not does not matter because it does. people view this as name calling and that is where the productive and intellectual conversation stops.
    If you seek a decent debate about actual solutions sarcasm and jokes pointed at a view different than yours must be left out or you face the inevitable outcome of a mud-fight
    this name calling and sarcasm has already started in this thread so i will decline to be a further part of it even though you (Vulchor) have touched on a few topics that i agree with you 100%
    as you know, i find almost any name calling distracting.
    i hope you get out of this thread what you are looking for.
    I'm afraid that too many of todays pundits do exactly what you say, Kuzi. Didn't mean to be name calling, but rather describing an altogether too unfortunate situation..Check out Thomas Sowell, less fingerpointing at Satan, more truth seeking.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for your opinion Kuzi. Of course you do think you always take the moral high road, but others of us here do not feel the same way. You can call what I do name calling, and what you do a well thoughout series of points...but you fail to realize they too often are loaded with mockery and condescension. Nevertheless, you too are entitled to your feelings and I am sorry for you that some things are so serious that humor cannot be mixed it (thats not being high and mighty btw)...I hope life never gets to that point for me, maybe its my immaturity or maybe my outlook but "if we didnt laugh we would all go insane"----and that includes laughing at things that can be uncomfortable and laughing at ourselves as well.

    As far as this thread, it is what it is. I am not looking for anything. Most threads dealing with anything political here are just a way for like minded people to find other like minded people to reinfirce what they believe. Some are p!issing contests, and a few are well rationed debates where no one can admit their opinion may be wrong on either side of the topic. As I stated...for this thread...it is what it is.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Theedge:
    Could it be that companies aren't hiring because people aren't buying their products? The gov't can give me incentives all day long, if my customers are still placing smaller orders, I sure don't need more production.

    Vulchor you mentioned an "agenda" - what is your agenda? What are you liberal about?
    Hey Edge...nice to meet you btw----love the pic on your page thingy.

    As far as my "agenda"...I have none really. It was more just a joke about the things in quotes. I dont think of myself as a liberal, but have been labeled so by some (not just here, not bashing anyone) and I hear on all sides of the aisles about "the gay agenda, the republican agenda, the pig man's agenda lol" so I just use the term in jest more than anything.

    I agree with you that certainly some of the reason for not hiring, and moreso in some industries, is due to what you say. Good point for some, but not all industries is that the case. I do realized everyone from Joe Schmoe to the biggest of corporations is "afraid" right now...for different reasons certainly, but your point is taken bro.
  • TatuajeVITatuajeVI Posts: 2,378
    Vulchor:
    TatuajeVI:
    Businesses aren't hiring for two main reasons:
    1. They can't afford it because they aren't making money
    2. They have no clue what the new tax laws are going to be by the end of the year, due to health care reform taxes incoming, and due to the Bush tax cuts expiring. So even if a business is making money, they don't know if they are going to continue to make money in the next 6 months. So why bother hiring new people?
    But in scenario #2 they are making money now. Which means they could lay off in the future if needed, I understand....but as for now that money is continuing profit.....I am not saying profit is bad, I am simply saying there is no incentive to hire, not because of what may happen in 6 months...but because they have their workers by the balls and dont need to reinvest in new hires.
    It is very expensive to hire, train, etc new employees. 6 months is not worth the investment. Uncertainty is a killer for businesses, and always will be.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    >As far as this thread, it is what it is. I am not looking for anything. Most threads dealing with anything political here are just a way for like minded people to find other like minded people to reinfirce what they believe. Some are p!issing contests, and a few are well rationed debates where no one can admit their opinion may be wrong on either side of the topic. As I stated...for this thread...it is what it is.
    I still don't understand what exactly your point is. If you wanted a collection of like-minded people to reinforce your beliefs, the Daily Kos would probably suit you rather well. Especially in regards to your views on capitalism and business in general, the DK would certainly reinforce your views and provide a collection of like-minded people.

    You knew when you made this thread what kinda responses you'd get, and you started the thread off with a provacative statement. It wasn't humor you were attempting, it was an outright insult, like saying "Hey, I want a civilized debate, but anyone who doesn't like what I say is a ****" - that's not humor, it's just an outright, rude insult that shows a lack of class and manners

    Depending on your age and your internet savvy, you may or may not know what it means when I tell you "Fail troll is fail"
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    Not looking or needing like minded anything Macro...as stated, I wouldnt get that here if I wanted.....unless of course I based Pelosi, or regulation, or the like. Cetainly not looking for reinforcment of ideas...plenty of others have a monopoly on that one. As far as the troll, thats really a matter of perspective. If I dont agree with what you and others say and find it useless, you are then said troll----but since my views are not echoed by the masses...that makes me the one. There is plenty of bashing and name calling of people here, politically I mean, by more than just me. Look at the hate and opinins on many of the right leaning posts. When I have my opinion, please dont blanket is as classless and mannerless simply because you may not like the view. I have been civil to everyone here and will continue to be so Macro, save perhaps the teabagger statement which is just a mockery at their name. If we go down that road, I could take equal offense to "obamacare" or the like, but I dont because viewpoints different than my own do not threaten or bother me...I welcome the freedom of thought and thought process.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    This is true Tat, and I believe that is a part of the reason. I am only concerned at how long the "uncertainty" may last and at what point you go ahead and hire anyway. It seems like a possible slippery slope is all.
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    I have been civil to everyone here and will continue to be so Macro, save perhaps the teabagger statement which is just a mockery at their name. If we go down that road, I could take equal offense to "obamacare" or the like, but I dont because viewpoints different than my own do not threaten or bother me...I welcome the freedom of thought and thought process.
    I was enjoying the little volley going on between macro and vulch here and wasn't going to chime in until I read this little "rationalization". I never cared for the term "teabagger" to describe Tea Party activists. It's juvenile at best.......highly offensive and disgusting at it's worst. I would think that the so-called "intellectual left" could do better than to stoop to such levels. That being said, I don't see a parallel at all between "teabagger" and "obamacare"...... How exactly would one take offense to the term "obamacare"?
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    I personally find it more offensive than the term teabagger. It is directed at one person and done so with the sole hope that the plan will fail. Teabagger is listed not only as a sexual term for lowering ones testicles into anothers mouth...but also "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient". Its up to you as to which you prefer to associate with the people or the party as a whole. Also, there has sure been alot of them wearing tea bags on their ears and such....but I dont see how thats offensive. I find a great deal of the people who support it offensive, but not my calling them something that describes them.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Vulchor:
    I personally find it more offensive than the term teabagger. It is directed at one person and done so with the sole hope that the plan will fail. Teabagger is listed not only as a sexual term for lowering ones testicles into anothers mouth...but also "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient". Its up to you as to which you prefer to associate with the people or the party as a whole. Also, there has sure been alot of them wearing tea bags on their ears and such....but I dont see how thats offensive. I find a great deal of the people who support it offensive, but not my calling them something that describes them.
    This why I quit with these political discussions. This thread had already derailed and is now about the offensiveness of the term Teabaggers. I find it funny that this keeps getting brought up by certain people but when you read Puro's political thread it is full of derogatory names for people who they percieve as "the other side".

    People can so easily be distracted from what's really important or what the main topic of a discussion is by just a little deflection. Not saying it is done on purpose (ok yes I am) but it sure does seem to happen a lot in these discussions.
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    I personally find it more offensive than the term teabagger. It is directed at one person and done so with the sole hope that the plan will fail. Teabagger is listed not only as a sexual term for lowering ones testicles into anothers mouth...but also "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient". Its up to you as to which you prefer to associate with the people or the party as a whole. Also, there has sure been alot of them wearing tea bags on their ears and such....but I dont see how thats offensive. I find a great deal of the people who support it offensive, but not my calling them something that describes them.
    I do agree that it's sad that there are people out there that "hope" Obama fails..... However, I think that most people who use the term "obamacare" are just using common sense in knowing that his plan will never work and will cost a lot of money and potentially cause irreparable damage to our economy, as bad as it already is. And it's just easier than saying "Universal Health Care Reform" or any other of the terms used to describe his health care plan. Plus, if Obama is so certain that his plan will work and will change America for the better, then he should be flattered to have his name attached to it.

    I personally don't hope Obamacare fails. I hope to God it doesn't. But the realist in me knows it will.

    I'd like to know where you got your "quote" from....... The only other definition I've ever seen or heard for a teabagger, is "one who who carries large bags of tea for shipment"....... I doubt that is what people are referring to ;-)
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    Vulchor:
    I personally find it more offensive than the term teabagger. It is directed at one person and done so with the sole hope that the plan will fail. Teabagger is listed not only as a sexual term for lowering ones testicles into anothers mouth...but also "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient". Its up to you as to which you prefer to associate with the people or the party as a whole. Also, there has sure been alot of them wearing tea bags on their ears and such....but I dont see how thats offensive. I find a great deal of the people who support it offensive, but not my calling them something that describes them.
    This why I quit with these political discussions. This thread had already derailed and is now about the offensiveness of the term Teabaggers. I find it funny that this keeps getting brought up by certain people but when you read Puro's political thread it is full of derogatory names for people who they percieve as "the other side".

    People can so easily be distracted from what's really important or what the main topic of a discussion is by just a little deflection. Not saying it is done on purpose (ok yes I am) but it sure does seem to happen a lot in these discussions.
    Puro is entitled to his opinions the same as Vulch is, but if you put your opinions out there, then prepare for the backlash you may get. "Political discussion" is one thing. Juvenile name calling is another. I'm sorry, but Vulch did set the tone for it in his original post. As far as this thread "derailing", I think you should go back and read macro's responses to Vulchor's talking points. I think he did a great job of "keeping it civil" regardless of Vulchor's childish jabs. I think its the definition of "civil political discourse"...... Something you see little of in the media these days.
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Also, the stimulus has created a great deal of wealth as many corporations are making larger profits with more money now in reserve than ever...however no jobs are being created. It seemed to be an altruistic idea gone awry by not remembering if there is more money to be made by keeping less people to do more work----that's the way it will be done. Whats the incentive to hire someone when you can have 4 people do the work of 5, and make them aware than they can be replaced at anytime by others who need jobs and will do more than is paid for??
    This is a mostly true statement, Vulchor. Many corporations have been making lots of money since the economic downturn and have still made layoffs and cutbacks. I think I've heard some figure out there that the top Fortune 100 are sitting on a surplus of well over $1 Trillion. But that's no big secret. And as far as how hard people work on Wall Street, the motivation to produce more than the next guy/girl has always been to not get fired, regardless or the economic climate. If you don't turn a profit, it's your a$$. That's just the nature of the beast.

    My theory behind the surplus not leading to expansion of industry and more jobs being created is a little different than yours. I honestly don't think major corporations are using the stimulus as a way to make more money with less work force. From an economic standpoint, that's just a band-aid. Any smart CEO would know that a bigger workforce will lead to a bigger return. My belief is that most corporations are sitting on their collective hands in light of Obama's new Financial Reform Plan. Political tides effect Wall Street the same as anything. More regulations means more fees, penalties and taxes paid out to the government. Most companies are willing to wait out the political storm and see what happens this November or even further into 2012.
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    lilwing88:
    laker1963:
    Vulchor:
    I personally find it more offensive than the term teabagger. It is directed at one person and done so with the sole hope that the plan will fail. Teabagger is listed not only as a sexual term for lowering ones testicles into anothers mouth...but also "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient". Its up to you as to which you prefer to associate with the people or the party as a whole. Also, there has sure been alot of them wearing tea bags on their ears and such....but I dont see how thats offensive. I find a great deal of the people who support it offensive, but not my calling them something that describes them.
    This why I quit with these political discussions. This thread had already derailed and is now about the offensiveness of the term Teabaggers. I find it funny that this keeps getting brought up by certain people but when you read Puro's political thread it is full of derogatory names for people who they percieve as "the other side".

    People can so easily be distracted from what's really important or what the main topic of a discussion is by just a little deflection. Not saying it is done on purpose (ok yes I am) but it sure does seem to happen a lot in these discussions.
    Puro is entitled to his opinions the same as Vulch is, but if you put your opinions out there, then prepare for the backlash you may get. "Political discussion" is one thing. Juvenile name calling is another. I'm sorry, but Vulch did set the tone for it in his original post. As far as this thread "derailing", I think you should go back and read macro's responses to Vulchor's talking points. I think he did a great job of "keeping it civil" regardless of Vulchor's childish jabs. I think its the definition of "civil political discourse"...... Something you see little of in the media these days.
    Isnt what you are complaining that I did was to "call people names"? You do realize you then proceeded to call me juvenile and childish as well correct???? Lol----hello pot, its kettle here..........PS. I got the quote from urbandictionary.com, and please lets not talk about how reputable a source it is since you already have me posting back about if testicles were or were not part of the meaning.
  • jpclotfelterjpclotfelter Posts: 294
    I think it's great that the "Thread for the 'Liberals'" has turned into a conversation about testicles in a matter of hours.
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    lilwing88:
    laker1963:
    Vulchor:
    I personally find it more offensive than the term teabagger. It is directed at one person and done so with the sole hope that the plan will fail. Teabagger is listed not only as a sexual term for lowering ones testicles into anothers mouth...but also "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient". Its up to you as to which you prefer to associate with the people or the party as a whole. Also, there has sure been alot of them wearing tea bags on their ears and such....but I dont see how thats offensive. I find a great deal of the people who support it offensive, but not my calling them something that describes them.
    This why I quit with these political discussions. This thread had already derailed and is now about the offensiveness of the term Teabaggers. I find it funny that this keeps getting brought up by certain people but when you read Puro's political thread it is full of derogatory names for people who they percieve as "the other side".

    People can so easily be distracted from what's really important or what the main topic of a discussion is by just a little deflection. Not saying it is done on purpose (ok yes I am) but it sure does seem to happen a lot in these discussions.
    Puro is entitled to his opinions the same as Vulch is, but if you put your opinions out there, then prepare for the backlash you may get. "Political discussion" is one thing. Juvenile name calling is another. I'm sorry, but Vulch did set the tone for it in his original post. As far as this thread "derailing", I think you should go back and read macro's responses to Vulchor's talking points. I think he did a great job of "keeping it civil" regardless of Vulchor's childish jabs. I think its the definition of "civil political discourse"...... Something you see little of in the media these days.
    Isnt what you are complaining that I did was to "call people names"? You do realize you then proceeded to call me juvenile and childish as well correct???? Lol----hello pot, its kettle here..........PS. I got the quote from urbandictionary.com, and please lets not talk about how reputable a source it is since you already have me posting back about if testicles were or were not part of the meaning.
    I wasn't aware that saying that someone is acting childish or engaging in juvenile behavior is akin to name calling....... Hmmmm, my bad. But it's still fair to say that using the term teabagger will never lead to civil discourse from anyone.

    And as far as questioning urbandictionary being a reputable source, I think you already know the answer to that one. I'm pretty sure that no one would have bothered to come up with an alternate definition if no one took offense to it in the first place. I don't know, were people walking around before the Tea Party movement referring to "Noobish behavior" as teabagging? Maybe. I don't know for sure. But I suspect that this "new" definition has something to with a certain somebody using the term on record......
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,775 ✭✭✭
    jpclotfelter:
    I think it's great that the "Thread for the 'Liberals'" has turned into a conversation about testicles in a matter of hours.
    Lolllllllllllll.....now dats funny right dere.
Sign In or Register to comment.