Jump to content
Haughton; I don't hate you. I even enjoy reading your rantings, they are good for a chuckle or two.
Thank you for telling him once again. He has been told directly at least 3 times. I think he knows and somehow thinks such a reference is an insult. Personally, I see it as a futile attempt to distract from the misinformation that he (don't think a female would see the Ms. as an insult) prints, such as the absurdity that somehow Obama is responsible for the Sequester which had to pass the House and Senate before coming to his office for a signature. While he is partially to blame by accepting this compromise, it is far from his responsibility, especially since house Republicans are blocking any effort to correct it.
My apologies. I did not mean to imply that all Republicans are racist. My intent was to point out how the Republicans use other peoples prejudices as a means of getting votes, even the ones that would never discriminate against a person because of race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. As for my last sentence, I know you read what I wrote but did you understand what I meant? Let me clarify by using your example. If a person's religious beliefs prohibit acceptance of homosexuality, then the church has a right to ban homosexuality in their congregation. They do not have a right to force their beliefs onto others. When they attempt to force their religious beliefs onto others, they are no better than the Taliban. Hiding behind religion never justifies hateful activity. I do agree that racist groups are found among liberal as well as conservatives; however, attempting to equate the KKK racist agenda with that of the NAACP is absurd. The NAACP never condoned attacks on people or profiling. I never intended to imply that anyone that disagrees with me must contain some kind of hate, but rather that they do not have a full understanding of the issues. For instance, you mentioned redistribution of the wealth, apparently under the impression that the poor are getting more than their share. If you look at government policies of taxation, including tax credits and allowable deductions and the various give away programs for industry, from research grants to farm subsidies, you will see that redistribution goes more to those in the top tax brackets.
Simple mathematics. Below is how the numbers work.
Using Rep Pelosi's ratio, someone getting $1000 in unemployment creates $1730. Someone still working would get net pay larger, thus spending more and paying taxes. If such working person were earning $1700 and spending $1400, he would thus create $2422. $2422 is higher than $1730. When you include the taxes paid, this is significantly better than the person loosing his/her job.
Jack, I can tell from your previous writings that you are not stupid. That is something that cannot be said about a lot of the right wing respondents. Why do you act stupid now? Of course she was referring to continuing unemployment benefits for those that had lost their jobs, not to firing additional people so we could spend more on unemployment.
Of course it is a left leaning organization. The right wing people do not care about anyone's rights except themselves and others with whom they can identify. This does not make it an extremist organization. Only a liberal organization would attempt to identify hate groups while the Republicans cater to hate groups to get their vote. I am sure you can find some right wing editorials printed in the mainstream press that is critical of the SPLC but editorials are strictly the opinion of the author and inconsequential as to the quality of the organization. Since you imply opposition to homosexuals and non Caucasians having equal rights, you must be a part of the hate group to whom Republicans cater.
Excellent points! Those 700,000 job losses will also be very expensive for states and hurt state budgets. States will lose income tax dollars from these workers. In addition, expenses for auxiliary services such as unemployment and food stamps, will increase. All this while House Republicans are insisting on paying for additional tanks that the Pentagon does not want.
From my research into the Dustin Inman Society, I found it to be a group with an extremist viewpoint of no compromise on immigration and has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC. Examining the web site listed, it becomes obvious that they quote peoples opinions and then represent these stated opinions as factual proof. D. A. King is only a recognized as an authority by others that hold his extremist viewpoints on immigration. I have not read the immigration bill and so cannot give a fair analysis as to its passage but have researched the issue sufficiently to know that our immigration policy and handling of illegal immigration needs a major overhaul. I am also sure, from discussions I have heard, that the current bill has many good points. Some compromise might be necessary to get a workable improvement through Congress. Congressmen should all be working to improve the bill instead of dismissing it as unworkable while using emotional arguments that are not based on facts.
I am amused by your inability to research, defending it by ridiculing those of us that do research. Further amused by your inability to understand english, for instance, Jack pointed out that I am a Mr., not a Ms.:
Your preoccupation with my employment status is also amusing, I am retired, have been for years. I planned for my retirement and have no plans of seeking employment. While I am not insulted by your accusation of being Why_not since illustrate significantly more intelligence than the most posters, I am not he or she. Your preoccupations are only a futile attempt to set up a smoke screen to the facts and avoid putting forth any effort to learn.
And yet, Richard, You indicate a desire to put the Government back in the hands of Republicans. You know the ones that have grown the deficit. Do some research. Deficit grew under Reagan and under both Bush's. One must reduce the deficit before one can reduce the debt. The most accurate comparison is in relation to GDP. Under Carter, average deficit was 2.5% GDP. Under Reagan that increased to 4.2% GDP. In fact, sicnce WWII, every Democratic President has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP while every Republican except Eisenhower have increased the debt as a percentage of GDP. For those that think it can't be true without resources, all this is available from Wikipedia. You might learn even more by researching it yourself with topics like Reaganomics and history of US public debt.
Last login: Sunday, August 18, 2013