Keep your fingers crossed, Ms. Benson. It’s a mid-term and turnout will be low, which means conservative fanatics will exert undue influence. But, the GOP has a bad habit of shooting themselves in the foot.
To be fair to Jase, there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who pick the lesser of the two evils. I would be lying if I said I hadn’t done it. Now, in my paradigm that means I’ve never voted for a democrat/liberal, but that doesn’t mean Jase doesn’t have the right to do the same, only on the other side. People are entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong. ;) — Sorry Jase, couldn’t resist.Really, it boils down to how you approach things. Fundamentally, it is the question of how much of an influence do you want the federal government to have on your life? Do you want a government that provides more services to the people at the expense of the upper echelon, or do you want government that (is supposed to) removes barriers so you can earn your own way forward? Do you want a government that enforces more regulations on the people and on businesses to exact a specific outcome, or are do you want a government that (is supposed to) be more hands-off and let the market dictate what happens? Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Where we run aground as a people is that it has gotten polarized into a couple camps. One camp believes: If you support the more government influence, that means you effectively support taking from one group and giving to another; legal theft. The other camp believes: If you leave the system to the market, the rich will abuse the poor and who will be there to protect them? Basically abandoning those who need help the most. The problem is these two views are mutually exclusive. You can’t provide socially-engineered benefits for one group without taking from another. You can’t be hands off to allow everyone to pave their own way without there being those who are left behind. And when you are taking from one group, or leaving another group behind, people get upset. It breeds resentment at the other group. That’s why there’s comments (albeit stupid ones) like Romney did about the 40-some percent. I resent the fact that some of my taxes go to pay for people who can work but choose not to. But I support the portion of my taxes that go to support those who truly need the help. Just like there are people who resent their taxes going towards the wars (insert locale here), but support the domestic or foreign humanitarian aide those same troops provide.So what we need to do is find a way to reconcile these issues. We can’t keep beating each other about the head and flinging verbal feces at each other like primates. How do we reconcile legal theft with abandonment? Instead of getting focused on which brown people we need to bomb next (to refer to George Carlin), or who to blame for a singular shooting amongst many, maybe we need to find a way to reach a common ground. Instead of focusing on how we are killing our planet versus the needs of humans who inhabit it right now, we should be focusing on a way to serve both needs (fusion). We are so focused, as a society, about how the other person is wrong, we aren’t looking for a way to make us both right. Maybe that’s something we should be doing, instead of all this bickering.
Dennis, to be fair, these are means of people to get elected, not the issues that are really at the heart of the matter. None of these are okay, but that’s based on our perception of how the process should work. One thing I have discovered is attacking the other side only begins a tit-for-tat war. You lob these accusations at liberals. Then they will fire back that republicans are warmongers, put innocent people in prison because of (insert reason here), birth control, and all their other talking points. It is endless and tiring.So instead of firing off at them, perhaps challenge an alternate path. The original comment was “Onward and upward for the 1 Percent then! (Just don’t speak plain English about it.).” So WM, don’t throw out just this meme or other partisan attack. Explain why that 1% is responsible for the other 99%‘s welfare (as in well-being, not the government program). Explain why the 1% should have to pay simply because “they can afford it.” That logic is missing a fundamental premise that people outside the 1% can also afford it, but you aren’t clamoring to have them pay for it. You’re missing the part where 53% of the US Population is currently paying 100% of the bill, simply because “they can afford it.” After all, if we couldn’t afford it, we would be making less and would be part of the 47%. So my question to you is, “At what level can you afford to take care of yourself and not expect others to pay for you?”
The problem is the electorate has become the base, which Republicans seem to be aiming at, with I.Q.s under 50. I’m sick of all the flap over Christy and “bridgegate”, but really? THAT is an issue for EITHER party, or the media, to spend years analyzing, like well, the NFL and a couple players who get caught being jerks, so it’s like they’re the only violent jerks in the country, so the head of the league should resign because he doesn’t track all players, 24/7 to monitor their behaviors? THAT gets folks bent out of shape, but tens of thousands killed in idiotic wars against countries that did nothing to the U.S., and resulted in a bunch of “terrorist groups” getting bent out of shape with us, doesn’t? Oh, right, they use violence, against two Americans and a Brit, (we can ignore all the thousands of their “own” they’ve attacked or killed, ‘cause they don’t count) calls for us to overthrow another country with war.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 9 years ago
Keep your fingers crossed, Ms. Benson. It’s a mid-term and turnout will be low, which means conservative fanatics will exert undue influence. But, the GOP has a bad habit of shooting themselves in the foot.
Wraithkin over 9 years ago
To be fair to Jase, there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who pick the lesser of the two evils. I would be lying if I said I hadn’t done it. Now, in my paradigm that means I’ve never voted for a democrat/liberal, but that doesn’t mean Jase doesn’t have the right to do the same, only on the other side. People are entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong. ;) — Sorry Jase, couldn’t resist.Really, it boils down to how you approach things. Fundamentally, it is the question of how much of an influence do you want the federal government to have on your life? Do you want a government that provides more services to the people at the expense of the upper echelon, or do you want government that (is supposed to) removes barriers so you can earn your own way forward? Do you want a government that enforces more regulations on the people and on businesses to exact a specific outcome, or are do you want a government that (is supposed to) be more hands-off and let the market dictate what happens? Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Where we run aground as a people is that it has gotten polarized into a couple camps. One camp believes: If you support the more government influence, that means you effectively support taking from one group and giving to another; legal theft. The other camp believes: If you leave the system to the market, the rich will abuse the poor and who will be there to protect them? Basically abandoning those who need help the most. The problem is these two views are mutually exclusive. You can’t provide socially-engineered benefits for one group without taking from another. You can’t be hands off to allow everyone to pave their own way without there being those who are left behind. And when you are taking from one group, or leaving another group behind, people get upset. It breeds resentment at the other group. That’s why there’s comments (albeit stupid ones) like Romney did about the 40-some percent. I resent the fact that some of my taxes go to pay for people who can work but choose not to. But I support the portion of my taxes that go to support those who truly need the help. Just like there are people who resent their taxes going towards the wars (insert locale here), but support the domestic or foreign humanitarian aide those same troops provide.So what we need to do is find a way to reconcile these issues. We can’t keep beating each other about the head and flinging verbal feces at each other like primates. How do we reconcile legal theft with abandonment? Instead of getting focused on which brown people we need to bomb next (to refer to George Carlin), or who to blame for a singular shooting amongst many, maybe we need to find a way to reach a common ground. Instead of focusing on how we are killing our planet versus the needs of humans who inhabit it right now, we should be focusing on a way to serve both needs (fusion). We are so focused, as a society, about how the other person is wrong, we aren’t looking for a way to make us both right. Maybe that’s something we should be doing, instead of all this bickering.
dogday Premium Member over 9 years ago
Really?? No one else saw a complete “Failure to Launch” here??
wiatr over 9 years ago
Hey, we are fired up here in Pa. Corbett is such an arrogant, insensitive, incompetent incumbent that he’s made the other guy a winner.
Wraithkin over 9 years ago
Dennis, to be fair, these are means of people to get elected, not the issues that are really at the heart of the matter. None of these are okay, but that’s based on our perception of how the process should work. One thing I have discovered is attacking the other side only begins a tit-for-tat war. You lob these accusations at liberals. Then they will fire back that republicans are warmongers, put innocent people in prison because of (insert reason here), birth control, and all their other talking points. It is endless and tiring.So instead of firing off at them, perhaps challenge an alternate path. The original comment was “Onward and upward for the 1 Percent then! (Just don’t speak plain English about it.).” So WM, don’t throw out just this meme or other partisan attack. Explain why that 1% is responsible for the other 99%‘s welfare (as in well-being, not the government program). Explain why the 1% should have to pay simply because “they can afford it.” That logic is missing a fundamental premise that people outside the 1% can also afford it, but you aren’t clamoring to have them pay for it. You’re missing the part where 53% of the US Population is currently paying 100% of the bill, simply because “they can afford it.” After all, if we couldn’t afford it, we would be making less and would be part of the 47%. So my question to you is, “At what level can you afford to take care of yourself and not expect others to pay for you?”
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
The problem is the electorate has become the base, which Republicans seem to be aiming at, with I.Q.s under 50. I’m sick of all the flap over Christy and “bridgegate”, but really? THAT is an issue for EITHER party, or the media, to spend years analyzing, like well, the NFL and a couple players who get caught being jerks, so it’s like they’re the only violent jerks in the country, so the head of the league should resign because he doesn’t track all players, 24/7 to monitor their behaviors? THAT gets folks bent out of shape, but tens of thousands killed in idiotic wars against countries that did nothing to the U.S., and resulted in a bunch of “terrorist groups” getting bent out of shape with us, doesn’t? Oh, right, they use violence, against two Americans and a Brit, (we can ignore all the thousands of their “own” they’ve attacked or killed, ‘cause they don’t count) calls for us to overthrow another country with war.