Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Hope she can keep up with the mortgage payments!
"Oh I understand how people struggle. Why my poor niece had to get her neighbours to help her landscape her home and install her sprinkler system so the neighbourhood association wouldn't write her a stern letter!"
Next week he'll tell us how they all pitched in to throw her a good old fashioned backyard pool raising.
Good job, Mitt.
But hey, why not let the poorer folks pay for it, right Mitt?
Don't worry, your neighbors will chip in to pay for your chemotherapy.
Ditto. Where was his poor niece's uncle while this was happening?
And a sprinkler system? A SPRINKLER SYSTEM?!?
"She doesn't have the money to do the landscaping, to pay for it."
This is your idea of people who are suffering? People without adequate LANDSCAPING?
Fancy that. Mitt just made the liberal argument.
At least Romney isn't trying to make us buy exploding battery cars, like the other guy.
(They probably used the mind-control ray-guns hidden in their extra-large noses, chortling in their guttural language as they did so.)
Also, husband's a lawyer (read: will sue our asses off if we try to enforce the HOA covenant while he's on-deployment).
AND you think those neighbors DON'T KNOW who this woman's uncle is? Looks real classy to fine the relative of the goram Republican presidential candidate for violation of the HOAC, while you've got his yard signs sticking up out of your own manicured-to-within-an-inch-of-its-life suburban cul-de-sac yard, yes?
You're going to have to do a bit better to convince Americans whose current president just got our national debt to over 14 trillion with very little to show for it and who just declared war on marriage and family, that they're better off with your messiah than with Mitt Romney.
But hey, keep up the shrill whining, the libel, the silly accusations. It can only help Republicans in November.
What they want are feel-good fictional stories of an America that never really existed, a regurgitation of Hallmark TV from Little House on the Prairie to Leave it to Beaver (but without those M*A*S*H commies).
You'd better kiss any hope of marrying someone of the opposite gender and having a family goodbye, because married gay people are coming here to be all married and gay and stuff, and you know that will queer your chances (see what I did there?) forever.
Not scared about that, but for the future of my country. We really can't afford another 4 years of Nanny State Obama. We can't afford a 20 or more trillion dollar debt, which he surely would get us to. We can't afford his inability to lead. We can't afford a leader who blames that inability on the opposition for- wait for it- opposing him.
So really, if this is all you got, you folks are in real trouble come November. I mean, so far as I can tell no substantive issues or policy based arguments for voting for Obama have been apparent. Just 47 year old accusations of youthful stupidity (which the late suppposed victims family rejects,) a general sense of hatred for anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year, and a lot of other bs that holds water about as well as my collander.
Good luck in November. You'll definitely need it.
I can't wait to serve this one back to you, just like when same sex marriage passed in the state senate.
But to see what happens when you tinker with social systems, look to the odious FDR. Prior to his presidency, a person would assume that the ills and issues of your family (father and mother, brothers and sisters and so on) are yours, and yours are theirs. So we had a system in which family was strengthened in time of trouble, as family drew together to solve problems. Then FDR declared that no problem anyone had was ever under any circumstances their fault or their responsbility to solve. Not surprisingly, this is kind of a popular thing to say to people in trouble. So our understanding of what government is and does fundamentally altered to a nanny state socialism, rather than what the Constitution established. It took about 30 years for the divorce rate to shoot through the roof as the family structure was weakened, but it happened and it hasn't recovered. LBJ carried the torch of rampant irresponsibility farther and accordingly weakened the social structure more. Now another odious anti American president wants to make war on marriage for the benefit of a few self selected citizens. Words like bigot and homophobe are used to shame those who consider that a step too far, but they really don't mean anything, other than a liberal expressing hatred of a different view than theirs.
So yes, other than being a disastrously bad president fiscally Obama is warring on family. And the polls just released suggest that he made an error in so doing, with Romney topping 50% and Obama in the 40's now. See, Americans understand what's at stake whether you do or not.
Thanks for the laugh, Mile High.
Like you'd understand logic! Funny stuff!
"At some point trading contentions that you won't accept as true from me, or I from you, isn't productive."
Then don't do that.
State what, exactly, will happen if Obama is elected for another 4 years.
Will the country go bankrupt?
Will we be unable to pay our military?
Will we be invaded by another country and have to fight to re-take a state?
Which state?
What flag will fly over that state's capital?
Be specific and show them that you know what you're talking about.
Or don't. Because you believe that one cent of Romney's money is worth more than the lives of 10 dead soldiers. It's okay to believe that. It's irrational. But it is still okay to believe that. But you cannot complain that others will not accept your irrational beliefs as true when they are simply your irrational beliefs.
Facts! Put up some FACTS!
So shut the fuck up then! You've established that the argument's not worth anyone's time, and then you prattle on about FDR and your deep, deep understanding of history.
....and once again I've gotten sucked into replying to this shithead. Jesus christ, he's a troll, but he's a good 'un!
Families were not strengthened during the great depression.
"Families were not strengthened during the great depression."
Obviously you did not get the Disneyfied version of "things were better in the old days" that various Republicans have been running on for years.
I remember the good old days of attending Klan church picnics during the Great Depression and complaining about Chicago gangsters and corrupt cops because of Prohibition.
I don't think Seattleblues has any idea how the average family lived back in the "good old days".
"We really can't afford another 4 years of Nanny State Obama. We can't afford a 20 or more trillion dollar debt, which he surely would get us to.
So in 3.5 years our national debt has risen about $4 trillion while recovering from the Great Recession, but in the next four years of recovery we'd add $5 trillion in additional debt? How? CBO says different--what is it that you know that they don't?
"We can't afford his inability to lead. We can't afford a leader who blames that inability on the opposition for- wait for it- opposing him."
Count the cloture votes.
"So really, if this is all you got, you folks are in real trouble come November. I mean, so far as I can tell no substantive issues or policy based arguments for voting for Obama have been apparent."
How about "avoid a return to failed Republican policies?" Sounds compelling to me. Let's go forward, not backward.
"Just 47 year old accusations of youthful stupidity (which the late supposed victim's family rejects,)"
You must mean the story that Romney's friends all say is true and which Romney does not deny.
"...a general sense of hatred for anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year,"
Assertion + nothing = nothing.
"Good luck in November. You'll definitely need it."
RealClearpolitics as of today shows Obama +1.3 (46.7% to 45.4%)) in national polls, Obama 253 to Romney 170 in the Electoral College, and Intrade Odds at Obama 59.4 to Romney 36.1. Yeah, it should be a reasonably good November.
Your ramble on FDR is a posit without an argument. I might be able to help you make an argument, though; here are some questions to get you started, taken from your own text:
-In what way was it suggested by FDR, or is it suggested by present-day liberals, that one's problems were/are not one's own to solve?
-What particular change in family structure strikes you as a "weakening," and how did it affect the divorce rate? Please be specific.
-In what sense does offering the state marital contract to same-sex couples constitute a war on marriage; how, indeed, does it impact marriage at all? You've been making the claim for years now, and have yet to answer this awfully simple question. Yeah, yeah, I know; you're not the one advocating for change. But given that the majority of Americans polled appear to support same-sex marriage, and many states are tipping in that direction, sometimes standing still is moving away. So just to humor us, and prepare for a few of humanity's many possible futures, you might want to prepare an answer. And until you do, you might recognize that making assertions without supporting arguments amounts to rhetorical flatulence.
Again, please demonstrate why, and be specific.
FDR and Social Security? Really?
I have never understood why Republicans pine for a time when elderly poverty was well over 50%.
"In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty. Today [in 2010] that poverty rate stands officially at 9.4%."
On this page, Politifact examines that first number and decides that "the best estimates show that the elderly poverty rate in 1935 was probably somewhere in the range of 70 to 90 percent."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
"...in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…
"Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent... the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements."
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04…
Just turned up to inform us that no he is not actually all about taking us back to the 50's, really he wants to take us back to that golden era of lynchings and child labor.
I'm wondering if you were shrieking about the debt quite so much when Dumbya was doubling it. You seriously expect us to believe Romney means to put things in order? Which Republican in recent memory can you point to that has demonstrated any fiscal responsibility?
Yes, it would be lovely if an Amish sort of ethic pervaded all across the land regarding helping your neighbor in need, that would be wonderful. When it happens, we should celebrate it and try to make it happen more often.
But when it doesn't happen, the standard conservo-Repug response is 'Oh well, too bad, next time try working a little harder to meet your needs yourself.'
Compassion my Aunt Fanny.........
SB is trapped in the 70's, and he's actually Archie Bunker!!
PROOF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_FrB-hki…
Romney suggested that if people need assistance, they should ask their family for help. But you're suggesting that comes with the caveat that they also have to feel shameful when they ask for help?
Is that the America you love?
What I am saying is that poorer relatives don't ask their rich family members for help because of pide in their own self-sufficency. I never asked my millionaire uncle for help when I was unemployed for a long time and needed money. What part of that do you not understand?
Speaking of rich politicicans and poorer relatives, how about Barack's brother living in an hut in Kenya?
Have you considered that pride in one's self-sufficiency is a vice rather than a virtue? Perhaps the people in this country would be better off if everyone - rich, poor, average - stopped worrying about everybody's fragile pride and instead admitted that we need to help each other without having to ask or be asked?
Social safety nets are put in place by the government because of the danger of people's pride.
Oh, and the President's brother? What about him? Is there some point you're trying to make?
@60: I agree!
@Gay Dude for Romney: Why? I guess that you're looking forward to having any hopes of civil equality squished like a cockroach. Good luck with that.
Then again, I'm not someone who would both argue for the draft and then get a deferment to go live in a palace in France.
They stump on "personal responsibility" and tell anecdotes about rags-to-riches stories and suggest people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use elbow grease and so on and so on.
And then their less educated followers interpret that message as: "You have to do everything yourself. You're responsible for your own success or failure. People who don't do things themselves are leeching off of others... They're lazy. They're selfish."
Do conservatives then go back and correct those assumptions and tell their followers not to make people feel intimidated about accepting assistance? No, they do not.
Instead, they use that language to write legislation to dismantle public assistance (people helping others) and instead give more rewards and tax reductions to already-successful corporations (i.e., reward the "winners," punish the "losers").
How do you square yourself with that? How can you say that people should not be intimidated to use social safety nets, while simultaneously supporting candidates who endorse the opposite?
Exactly!
Taxes represent charity - by all, for all - they are a way to help those who need help, without requiring the recipient to prostrate themselves before their donor. That's why conservative hate taxes used to help the needy. It doesn't let them rub their recipient's noses in their own percieved superiority. No, they prefer private charity, where it's clear they can flaunt their "superiority" over the recipients of their "generosity."
With conservatives, "charity" is all about what they themselves can get out of it. It's always got strings attached. It's always got conditions applied.
I think Stephen King also made that same point recently.
If you're rich then you can "donate" to your personal causes.
And if those causes are structured correctly then you can take those "donations" off of your taxes.
Kind of like how Romney donates to his church ... which then pays for ads ... and preaches correct voting behavior and such.
But those donations are NOT the same as taxes.
Taxes go to things that people need and for which YOU may not receive credit or support from.
And it is not just moral superiority.
It is also about control.
If the poor have to go to the church for alms then the poor will probably support expanding the church and oppose reducing it.
The same can be said about the government.
But since we don't live in a Theocracy there is a critical difference.
The government can pass different laws that affect jobs and taxes and EVERYTHING.
And the government can do that without the incentive for you to change your religious beliefs.
Exactly. But not only that, taxes don't choose who's considered to be worthy of support, something that is conveniently forgotten by conservatives who believe that support should be based primarily on personal charity.
That simply isn't true. Even if it were a legitimate exercise of government authority to steal from one taxpayer for the sole benefit of another, what you write isn't true.
Around half of the taxpayers aren't. That is, they pay no taxes so can't really be called taxpayers. Nearly 80% of taxes are paid by 20% of the citizens. And no they don't make 80% of the income, more like 65% by recent IRS numbers. That is, most 'taxpayers' don't even begin to carry their share of the burden of legitimate government, never mind the nanny state bullshit. So spare me the 'community coming together,' will ya? The IRS collection data doesn't indicate a community, unless you mean the 20% or so paying for most of our government.
I have a PERSONAL duty to help those less fortunate. This may surprise you but mugging someone else, stealing their money and giving it to the beggar on the corner isn't you being charitable. It isn't fulfilling your charitable duties. It's you being immoral.
No, what YOU wrote isn't true.
Don't start with that "80% don't pay any taxes" bullshit. They pay sales tax. They pay property tax. Are you suggesting 80% of the population doesn't buy anything? They don't own any property?
Sales tax is harshly regressive. The poorest pay the largest percentage of what they own compared to the wealthy when it comes to sales and property taxes.
Please re-do your math to account for this fact.
That said, as one business owner to another, how do you plan on growing your business when you only think of yourself and not the greater world around you?
Congratulations on starting and running a business.
Presumably you know then that a lot of effort and time and worry went into the 3-5 years before you began to make money, if you're like the vast majority of small to medium business owners out there. Even now your employees get a check whether the client pays or not, whether you have a good month or a bad one. The owner doesn't, if those bad months drag on too long. He or she will have a failed business on their hands, a decade or two or three of wasted effort building that now defunct brainchild of theirs, and a hard time finding a new job as a failed businessman.
Presumably you also know that your employees chose safety and predictable income over the risk of being a business owner. No shame in it. For most it's a wise decision. I can gaurantee you they want no share in my risks, or in the occasional losses on one project or another. They want no share in the long, long hours and risk of my home and savings and investors money to build that business. And that's fine, still. But when they, you or anyone else makes the claim that they have some right to a share in my profits? Yeah, that argument carries no water with me.
Yes, the infrastructure that in part made my lifestyle possible was paid for with taxes. And anyone else could have done as I or you or your grandparents did. The freeway that takes me to my office isn't the Seattleblues Memorial Freeway. The school system that gave a basic grounding in as little as they could while still brainwashing kids to be good little liberals wasn't built for me, but for everyone. That some choose not to take advantage of the opportunities these things provide isn't my fault and it isn't my problem, and it sure as hell doesn't entitle them to any of my money.
Now as far as my leadership style goes: beer is messy and hard work. I like to treat my employees as a team. The better we do, the better everyone's end of year bonus is. It's a good way to motivate everyone to put in their all and gives everyone a sense of pride and ownership. I asked what kind of industry you're in becuase gain-share or end of year bonuses might be a really good way of avoiding folks who are just there for the check. Of course I'm still the boss hence why the crew is off enjoying Seattle Beer Week and I'm down at the shop, brewing.
Oops, I just asked him to provide supporting evidence. Must be that consarned liberal brainwashing making me care about the facts again.
"But when they, you or anyone else makes the claim that they have some right to a share in my profits? Yeah, that argument carries no water with me."
What, exactly, are you talking about?
Is it taxes? Are you opposed to taxes on your "profits"?
Because if that is the issue then there are a few places in the world where you won't be taxed.
Somehow I don't see you doing too well in Somalia, though.
Weren't you the one that said that Romney should not pay a single penny more in taxes for national defense because a single penny to Romney was worth more than the lives of 10 dead soldiers?
Yes, it was, wasn't it?