Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:51:00 PM (view original):
Yes, government can augment the assistance. But government was never designed to be a charity. Charities were well run, well funded for centuries before government got involved.

Charities aren't paying for necessary social programs.

I appreciate your optimism, though.

You are for wealth redistribution. You have made that very clear. Almost every proposal that you have given has included raising taxes on the rich. This is why you are a socialist. I am not mad at you for it, nor will I belittle you for it, but the truth is the truth.

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 10/12/2018 11:16:00 PM (view original):
no one has ever created an us vs them society as trump has done......that is why he is so dangerous....it is counter to what we aspire to as a country and as human beings.

Your bud Obama was working diligently on exactly this.

This is what I was thinking. Trump is undoubtedly politically divisive, but it did not start with Trump. It truly started with Obama.

The country wasn't politically divided before Obama?

Talk about misinformed statements.

Not misinformed at all. We have always had a political divide. The divide grew significantly during Bush's second term, but Bush wasn't a divisive president. He was a bad president and this drove a wedge between the parties. Obama was an intentionally divisive president. McConnell and the crew take blame here as well. It's not all on Obama. Prior to Bush, the country worked together fairly well. There were disagreements, but Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Gingrich were very civil adversaries and knew how to find a middle ground.

I think Obama was a divisive president, but I don't think he was an intentionally divisive president any more than Bush was.

Bush wasn't divisive in any way that I can remember. Obama intentionally made comments to rile his political opposition. Please google me a comment that Bush made as such.

Burden of proof is on you. I never claimed that Bush was intentionally divisive.

Intentionally divisive to me is Trump and Trumpists claiming victory when people on the left are upset about something.

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/12/2018 11:44:00 PM (view original):
Tang supports AOC who wants to nationalize industries. He is a socialist. Like her.

So because I support a candidate I support everything that they support?

AOC is farther left than I am.

Good intentions perhaps, but she really is clueless. A pretty face is not a qualification.

You don't think I get ****** off at the dumb **** she says sometimes?

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/12/2018 11:44:00 PM (view original):
Tang supports AOC who wants to nationalize industries. He is a socialist. Like her.

So because I support a candidate I support everything that they support?

AOC is farther left than I am.

Good intentions perhaps, but she really is clueless. A pretty face is not a qualification.

Not sure I would call her pretty. Definitely much prettier than everyone else currently in the senate, but I would give her a 5.5.

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:54:00 PM (view original):
You are for wealth redistribution. You have made that very clear. Almost every proposal that you have given has included raising taxes on the rich. This is why you are a socialist. I am not mad at you for it, nor will I belittle you for it, but the truth is the truth.

I don't support the nationalization of industry. You can make up definitions all you want (and I don't even fit in yours) but as I said I know actual socialists and they would definitely tell you that I am not one of them.

With more people working, less are dependent on assistance. Some of us saw Obama's handywork with entitlements as intentional. He was doing little to reverse the trend. Same on crime. Chicagos and Baltimore don't usually just fix themselves...is why Emanuel will be sailed out of Chicago like a frisbee.

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:36:00 PM (view original):
Tang, what you fail to realize is that social welfare does not help families. It creates a temporary band aid, but over generations it does much more harm than good. It creates an unhealthy reliance on government. I have told you the story about the sixth grader that told me "I don't have to do his work because I will always receive a check." This goes back to the dependency that I was referring to. It is a mindset that can last many generations. People in power use social welfare to enslave their populace.

Another good example that I can give you deal's with my aunt. She is in her mid-60's and has lived off of my grandfather her entire life. He has created a monster. She has very little understanding of how to manage money and has never been able to keep a job. She has no desire to keep a job because she knows that daddy will always be there with his check book. Guess what, he just turned 94. At most, and this is being highly optimistic, he has 5-10 years left with us. What is she going to do when he passes. She's already burnt through her inheritance. The problem that my grandfather created is the same problem that our government has created.

I know you find me harsh on this issue, but I am actually not. I believe that the American people are stronger than what many on the left and our government give them credit for. I believe that if we did not have as many social safety nets, people would still find a way to survive and thrive.

I completely agree that the system is abused too much and that it needs reform. I disagree that it needs to be taken away. We just disagree on your last sentence.

So you don't believe that Americans are strong enough to thrive without the help of the government?

I disagree that each American would thrive without the help of the government. It is a flaw of capitalism that can be checked with necessary social programs.

You also fail to acknowledge the impact this would have on generational poverty.

And that is where our philosophical differences lie. I believe that Americans are stronger and more resilient than you do.

If you read Doc's article, it outlines what has happened to generational poverty worldwide through capitalism. It answers my question for me.

Doc, if you have time, will you please relink the article for Tang?

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/12/2018 11:44:00 PM (view original):
Tang supports AOC who wants to nationalize industries. He is a socialist. Like her.

So because I support a candidate I support everything that they support?

AOC is farther left than I am.

Good intentions perhaps, but she really is clueless. A pretty face is not a qualification.

Not sure I would call her pretty. Definitely much prettier than everyone else currently in the senate, but I would give her a 5.5.

She's also about 40 years younger than most of them and much closer to our age range, so I am sure that helps.

CCCP and Bob prolly think Nancy Pelosi is a stud

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 10/12/2018 11:16:00 PM (view original):
no one has ever created an us vs them society as trump has done......that is why he is so dangerous....it is counter to what we aspire to as a country and as human beings.

Your bud Obama was working diligently on exactly this.

This is what I was thinking. Trump is undoubtedly politically divisive, but it did not start with Trump. It truly started with Obama.

The country wasn't politically divided before Obama?

Talk about misinformed statements.

Not misinformed at all. We have always had a political divide. The divide grew significantly during Bush's second term, but Bush wasn't a divisive president. He was a bad president and this drove a wedge between the parties. Obama was an intentionally divisive president. McConnell and the crew take blame here as well. It's not all on Obama. Prior to Bush, the country worked together fairly well. There were disagreements, but Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Gingrich were very civil adversaries and knew how to find a middle ground.

I think Obama was a divisive president, but I don't think he was an intentionally divisive president any more than Bush was.

Bush wasn't divisive in any way that I can remember. Obama intentionally made comments to rile his political opposition. Please google me a comment that Bush made as such.

Burden of proof is on you. I never claimed that Bush was intentionally divisive.

Intentionally divisive to me is Trump and Trumpists claiming victory when people on the left are upset about something.

Seeing as how I could care less about proving this to you, you have my permission to believe whatever you like. If you want to believe that Bush was divisive, you are more than welcome.

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/12/2018 11:44:00 PM (view original):
Tang supports AOC who wants to nationalize industries. He is a socialist. Like her.

So because I support a candidate I support everything that they support?

AOC is farther left than I am.

Good intentions perhaps, but she really is clueless. A pretty face is not a qualification.

Not sure I would call her pretty. Definitely much prettier than everyone else currently in the senate, but I would give her a 5.5.

She's also about 40 years younger than most of them and much closer to our age range, so I am sure that helps.

CCCP and Bob prolly think Nancy Pelosi is a stud

Hey, easy there. I bet Pelosi had it going on in her younger years. Hillary, however, did not and unfortunately Chelsea followed suit.

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/13/2018 12:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/12/2018 11:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/12/2018 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/12/2018 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 10/12/2018 11:16:00 PM (view original):
no one has ever created an us vs them society as trump has done......that is why he is so dangerous....it is counter to what we aspire to as a country and as human beings.

Your bud Obama was working diligently on exactly this.

This is what I was thinking. Trump is undoubtedly politically divisive, but it did not start with Trump. It truly started with Obama.

The country wasn't politically divided before Obama?

Talk about misinformed statements.

Not misinformed at all. We have always had a political divide. The divide grew significantly during Bush's second term, but Bush wasn't a divisive president. He was a bad president and this drove a wedge between the parties. Obama was an intentionally divisive president. McConnell and the crew take blame here as well. It's not all on Obama. Prior to Bush, the country worked together fairly well. There were disagreements, but Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Gingrich were very civil adversaries and knew how to find a middle ground.

I think Obama was a divisive president, but I don't think he was an intentionally divisive president any more than Bush was.

Bush wasn't divisive in any way that I can remember. Obama intentionally made comments to rile his political opposition. Please google me a comment that Bush made as such.

Burden of proof is on you. I never claimed that Bush was intentionally divisive.

Intentionally divisive to me is Trump and Trumpists claiming victory when people on the left are upset about something.

Seeing as how I could care less about proving this to you, you have my permission to believe whatever you like. If you want to believe that Bush was divisive, you are more than welcome.

Every president is divisive.

Bush wasn't intentionally divisive as far as I am aware. Neither was Obama. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I love to learn.

Bush and Iraq caused a divide. I believe he based his decision on 2 things. Intel, and oil. The Intel said Hussein had WMD. The oil, it was Kuwaiti property in the hands of a madman, he could have held the world hostage. Bush should have announced that terrorists held the pipelines and refineries, we need to reclaim them. Done. No backlash. Yeah, it's about the goddamned oil. Next question.

Haha the pretty face was compared to Bernie.

Identity politics is right out of the Alinsky playbook. Divide and conquer. Minimalize, marginalize. Ruin them. Rinse and repeat. Nothing to see here. Not a smidgen of corruption.

Likeable but is the dumbest smart guy ever. Never would listen to an opposing viewpoint. Buckley would have eaten his lunch. A very easy weakness to spot when you only surround yourself with like minded people. Boehner gets some blame, but did try initially to reason with him. IRS targeting of political opponents (Tea Party), appears to be to limit contributions of the election. No small matter. Media contrite. I have more.