Real World Event Discussions

A thread for Democrats Only

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Thursday, September 17, 2026 09:05
VIEWED: 757563
PAGE 10 of 73

SECOND

Sunday, April 22, 2018 8:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Debunking the myth that “identity politics” is bad for the Democratic Party

Followed by about 8 paragraphs that did no such thing.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I would guess that you did not read the article. I will quote it:

The push for racial justice was a bottom-up movement, not a misstep by elites
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/16/17242748/identity-politics-racial-j
ustice-democratic-party-lilla-traub-trump

African Americans, the CIO, and other urban liberals fostered a new understanding of “liberalism” in which support for civil rights was a key marker of one’s identity as a liberal. Ordinary voters, too, came to link racial and economic liberalism: By the early ’40s, Northern Democratic voters were substantially more likely to back key civil rights initiatives than were Republicans.

Grassroots African-American activists played a critical role in tightening these connections. Capitalizing on the mobilization for World War II, they pushed Fair Employment Practices legislation — to prevent racial discrimination in employment — onto the political agenda. The Fair Employment Practices Committee soon became a core element of the “liberal program.”

The energy and activism that propelled the Democratic Party in the 1940s and beyond came from this new coalition, which gradually captured the formal party organization, despite the reluctance of most top party leaders. The Democrats’ endorsement of civil rights in 1948, and beyond, was not a matter of elites steering the people the wrong way. It was the product of a long-term, cross-racial movement that viewed civil rights as integral to the liberal program — and the labor program.

The “identity politics” argument assumes that racial justice ultimately brought down the liberal project. But this gets the history almost backward. Indeed, much of the moral fervor that fed the liberal project in the 1940s came precisely from its linkage to the cause of racial justice.

The bitter response to this program forged a clear division in which Southern conservatives were identified on one side and African Americans, unions, Jews, and other urban liberals on the other. Where Traub and others think this division was the product of liberals’ shift in focus from white workers to African Americans, racial backlash was sown into the attack on the New Deal almost from the beginning (just as cross-racial solidary was assumed by many of its supporters).

Lessons for today’s Democrats

Contemporary liberals are once again confronted with the challenge of forging a politics in which reformers seeking progress for particular groups do not see themselves as isolated advocates but instead as part of a broader ideological coalition with common aims and shared enemies.

The biggest obstacle to such a coalition today is the decline of organized labor, which played a critical role in forging the expansive New Deal liberalism that took hold in the 1930s. But this decline is rooted not in a post-1965 reaction against civil rights; instead, it can be traced to the alliance between Southern Democrats and Republicans nationally that made crushing unions a top priority from the late 1930s onward.

What the cross-racial liberal vision put forward by the CIO and its African-American allies suggests is that movements for economic justice can derive vitality from attending to the identities and interests of marginalized groups.

New Deal liberalism was, in part, identity politics. Appeals to identity — whether by farmers, veterans, workers, or immigration opponents — have always been a potent political force. The main difference is that, unlike previous versions of identity politics in the US, the identity politics of the New Deal era was not limited to white Americans.

The lesson of the New Deal coalition for liberals today is not that they should turn away from appeals to the identities of particular groups. Instead, liberalism is at its strongest when its advocate

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 23, 2018 12:17 AM (P)

Oh good. You followed up with another 15 paragraphs that did no such thing.

Thanks for wasting my time twice in one morning.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 23, 2018 2:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh good. You followed up with another 15 paragraphs that did no such thing.

Thanks for wasting my time twice in one morning.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Didn't you fall for the redefining of Slavers, anti-Freedom, anti-Liberty, anti-Emancipation, anti-Civil Rights Southerners as "Conservatives" already? We must accept that all reasonable people from Lincoln to Dirksen must have been those Progressives working to remove Liberty and Freedom from The Constitution.

No wonder he dislikes reasonable people, when he redefines Democrat Socialist Progressives as "Conservatives".

1KIKI

Monday, April 23, 2018 3:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
justice for all

Justice for all. Even whites. Even white males. Even fly-over country.

Justice for all. Excluding no one. Favoring no one. Equal and universal. Uplifting all with efforts to improve all lives. Understanding that justice isn't making sure we're all equally-armed in the Roman arena of the war of all against all in the need for work, where nobody wins except business. Instead, binding us with our common concern and the power of masses, to change our common relationship with government and business.

If the democrats got behind that, I could get behind the democrats.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

SECOND

Monday, April 23, 2018 4:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh good. You followed up with another 15 paragraphs that did no such thing.

Thanks for wasting my time twice in one morning.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6ixStringJack, you have been given by 1kiki a lofty and inspiring explanation. Another, by Thomas Piketty: “without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same party.” Because I am crude, I’ll explain "identity politics" crudely: White trash think that dividing money equally with people they despise will mean far less money for white trash. But the white trash of America will never get the money they think they deserve unless Mexicans, niggers, queers and women also get a much bigger share of the wealth. I am in the sweet position of a wealthy person where I can tell the white trash that their understanding of how America works is erroneous. I don’t expect they will understand their error, but that’s great for me. The choice is between getting almost nothing more for anyone but the already wealthy or else everyone gets more, that is everyone except rich people. Wealthy people like me will get far less because they will be paying more taxes and paying higher minimum wages. You might have noticed that higher taxes and higher wages are not on the political agenda. That is a clever choice made by the wealthy – to never pay extra until they absolutely must.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:01 AM (P)

Quote:
White trash think that dividing money equally with people they despise will mean far less money for white trash. But the white trash of America will never get the money they think they deserve unless Mexicans, niggers, queers and women also get a much bigger share of the wealth.

It's not true that one group will prosper only if other groups prosper, which is the only argument in favor of identity politics.

That argument is the fallacy of identity politics. Through it we are being played by identity politics into an unstated zero-sum game. The notion is that it's OK to be pitted against each other for survival, as long as the fight is FAIR. But it doesn't matter how FAIRLY we are judged in the arena. There will be the winners at the expense of the losers. If some groups rise it will be because other groups fall. It's still the same zero-sum game.

Democrats - or some new party that rises up out of the ashes - need to specifically reject the notion that people being FAIRLY pitted against each other for survival is the end goal.

The end goal should be to raise us all up. Together.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

SECOND

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:32 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
White trash think that dividing money equally with people they despise will mean far less money for white trash. But the white trash of America will never get the money they think they deserve unless Mexicans, niggers, queers and women also get a much bigger share of the wealth.
It's not true that one group will prosper only if other groups prosper, which is the only argument in favor of identity politics.

That argument is the fallacy of identity politics. Through it we are being played by identity politics into an unstated zero-sum game. The notion is that it's OK to be pitted against each other for survival, as long as the fight is FAIR. But it doesn't matter how FAIRLY we are judged in the arena. There will be the winners at the expense of the losers. If some groups rise it will be because other groups fall. It's still the same zero-sum game.

Democrats - or some new party that rises up out of the ashes - need to specifically reject the notion that people being FAIRLY pitted against each other for survival is the end goal.

The end goal should be to raise us all up. Together.

The zero-sum game that should be played is the one where the wealthy lose to everyone poorer. But that is not the game that Congress will allow to be played. At one time Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which was targeted at the wealthy. That act hasn't been enforced in decades, which is extremely advantageous for the wealthy and harmful to the poor. There is a half trillion dollars in uncollected taxes from the wealthy each year. That is also to the advantage of the wealthy and disadvantage of the poor. Congress is not providing the IRS with more tax auditors to prevent this cheating. There is a consumer protection agency that does not enforce rules that cheat poor people who borrow. This cheating will make rich people even richer. All this cheating can go on for the advantage of the wealthy because the lower classes hate each other and fight with each other rather than with Congress and the Wealthy.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:36 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh good. You followed up with another 15 paragraphs that did no such thing.

Thanks for wasting my time twice in one morning.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
6ixStringJack, you have been given by 1kiki a lofty and inspiring explanation. Another, by Thomas Piketty: “without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same party.” Because I am crude, I’ll explain "identity politics" crudely: White trash think that dividing money equally with people they despise will mean far less money for white trash. But the white trash of America will never get the money they think they deserve unless Mexicans, niggers, queers and women also get a much bigger share of the wealth. I am in the sweet position of a wealthy person where I can tell the white trash that their understanding of how America works is erroneous. I don’t expect they will understand their error, but that’s great for me. The choice is between getting almost nothing more for anyone but the already wealthy or else everyone gets more, that is everyone except rich people. Wealthy people like me will get far less because they will be paying more taxes and paying higher minimum wages. You might have noticed that higher taxes and higher wages are not on the political agenda. That is a clever choice made by the wealthy – to never pay extra until they absolutely must.

lol. You're too funny Second.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:37 AM (P)

Who is supposed to benefit from the existence of society? Corporations, or people? When you answer that question you'll be able to make a straightforward argument.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

SECOND

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:46 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Who is supposed to benefit from the existence of society? Corporations, or people? When you answer that question you'll be able to make a straightforward argument.

Everybody benefits, but some have their benefits increasing every year, while others get approximately the same as they always have -- the smallest amount that they will accept before they leave the slums of Beverly Hills and start burning down the mansions of Brentwood.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Everybody benefits

I'll say everybody benefits from living in a society when, by group, everyone has the same lifespan. But that's not true, so - obviously - some people are being killed by society to benefit others.

In any case, we have strayed from the topic of identity politics. I see you don't have a rebuttal to my proposal.

Which to reiterate briefly is this: since identity politics accepts the current zero-sum game, one group can only advance at the expense of another. If the democrats or some other party is going to succeed at creating a broad coalition of voters, it needs to reject identity politics and advance the broad economic interests of people as a whole.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

SECOND

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Everybody benefits
I'll say everybody benefits from living in a society when, by group, everyone has the same lifespan. But that's not true, so - obviously - some people are being killed by society to benefit others.

In any case, we have strayed from the topic of identity politics. I see you don't have a rebuttal to my proposal.

Which to reiterate briefly is this: since identity politics accepts the current zero-sum game, one group can only advance at the expense of another. If the democrats or some other party is going to succeed at creating a broad coalition of voters, it needs to reject identity politics and advance the broad economic interests of people as a whole.

1kiki, remember those accusations of you being a Russian Troll? I truly do not believe you are even living in North America, let alone that you are a voting American citizen. It is a pure form of identity politics, I can't identify you as anything other than a distraction. I do not trust you in any way, shape, or form. I can't even verify you are in any group, from anywhere on earth, let alone one that I wish to be in a coalition. Having said all that, here is Thomas Piketty, living in France and using his real name, and I would trust Piketty not to lie or deceive me when he writes about economics and politics:

Is the Two-Party System Doomed?

A new study shows us what observation should already have made clear: a messy restructuring of America's political parties is coming.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-piketty-study-is-two-party-system
-doomed-w518585

Thomas Piketty's new essay, called Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right, studied electoral trends in three Western countries – France, Britain and the U.S. – dating back to the 1940s.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018PoliticalConflict.pdf PowerPoint slide presentation only

Piketty writes that across all three countries, we've seen the evolution of the same trend. Fifty or sixty years ago, voting with the "left-wing" side (which he terms the socialist/labour/democratic parties) tended to be associated with low income and low education. Conversely, high education and high-income voters in all three countries voted right.

Over the years, however, the "left-wing" has become more and more associated with higher-education voters, giving rise to what he calls a "multiple-elite" party system. High-education elites now vote for the “left”, while high income/high-wealth elites still vote for the “right” (though less and less so).

Piketty puts numbers behind an observation that anyone covering recent American presidential elections could have made: That huge pluralities of voters on both sides of the aisle increasingly see both major parties as tools of the very rich.

His belief is that a major reordering of the political landscape is coming. It will be based less on traditional notions of right and left, and more along the lines of what he describes as "globalists (high-education, high-income) vs. nativists (low-education, low-income)."

. . .

By the beginning of the 2015-2016 presidential election campaign, all trends had worsened significantly compared to 2008. Income disparity was worse. Indebtedness was worse. Even political influence was now significantly more imbalanced, after the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court. People were angrier about all of it.

A few establishment voices, like Jimmy Carter, pointed to these factors when asked to explain the rise of Trump. But most pundits dismissed the discontent over these things, which played right into Trump's hands.

Candidate Trump's solutions were all lies. But his stump presentation hammered home an unfortunately true observation that politicians in both parties had incentives not to care about them, because they were sponsored by the same mega-donors.

. . .

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 23, 2018 6:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Everybody benefits
I'll say everybody benefits from living in a society when, by group, everyone has the same lifespan. But that's not true, so - obviously - some people are being killed by society to benefit others.

In any case, we have strayed from the topic of identity politics. I see you don't have a rebuttal to my proposal.

Which to reiterate briefly is this: since identity politics accepts the current zero-sum game, one group can only advance at the expense of another. If the democrats or some other party is going to succeed at creating a broad coalition of voters, it needs to reject identity politics and advance the broad economic interests of people as a whole.
1kiki, remember those accusations of you being a Russian Troll? I truly do not believe you are even living in North America, let alone that you are a voting American citizen. It is a pure form of identity politics, I can't identify you as anything other than a distraction. I do not trust you in any way, shape, or form. I can't even verify you are in any group, from anywhere on earth, let alone one that I wish to be in a coalition.

How could anybody forget. Kiki and Sigs are probably called a Russian Troll by other trolls on this board almost everyday.

Quote:
Having said all that, here is Thomas Piketty, living in France and using his real name, and I would trust Piketty not to lie or deceive me when he writes about economics and politics:

Why do you trust this guy?

Why would this guy bother trying to lie or deceive you, personally, when he writes?

Quote:
Is the Two-Party System Doomed?

No. It's not. It's all just an illusion that's maintained to make the people believe they have any say in what goes on. There might be two parties that look different than they do today in the future. There might even be three or four. That's not going to make things change at all.

Our perception of what the Two-Party System is may be Doomed. But whatever form it morphs into will continue on as it always has.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:
Is the Two-Party System Doomed?

No. It's not. It's all just an illusion that's maintained to make the people believe they have any say in what goes on. There might be two parties that look different than they do today in the future. There might even be three or four. That's not going to make things change at all.

Our perception of what the Two-Party System is may be Doomed. But whatever form it morphs into will continue on as it always has.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6ixStringJoker, when the Federal government started in 1789, people like you had absolutely no say in picking George Washington or what the laws were. No slaves voted. No women voted. No men voted unless they owned significant property. We are still living in that exact same system with the same Constitution that George Washington signed, with a few minor adjustments. Why are you surprised that nobody will listen to you? The Constitution was never designed to make life comfortable for people like you or to give your life any meaning.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:39 AM (P)

"I truly do not believe you are even living in North America, let alone that you are a voting American citizen. It is a pure form of identity politics, I can't identify you as anything other than a distraction."

I started out fairly poor. By hard work, the luck of the genetic draw, and advantages like a poor to mediocre but not terrible schooling system, (though hobbled with a couple of significant disadvantages), I'm now relatively wealthy. Not like you of course, but far ahead the vast majority of Americans.

I do have one major difference, I believe, from most people in my position. I would give up everything I have - in a heartbeat, as they say - if it would guarantee a fair world. It won't of course, so I maintain my work schedule and my frugality. But my basic mindset is damn peculiar from other people with money, who become greedy, and suspicious of everyone, because they categorize everyone as trying to 'get' 'their stuff'. I don't.

And I want, more than anything else, to be able to give up 'my stuff' because we've achieved a fair world.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

SECOND

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:53 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I truly do not believe you are even living in North America, let alone that you are a voting American citizen. It is a pure form of identity politics, I can't identify you as anything other than a distraction."

I started out fairly poor. By hard work, the luck of the genetic draw, and advantages like a poor to mediocre but not terrible schooling system, (though hobbled with a couple of significant disadvantages), I'm now relatively wealthy. Not like you of course, but far ahead the vast majority of Americans.

I do have one major difference, I believe, from most people in my position. I would give up everything I have - in a heartbeat, as they say - if it would guarantee a fair world. It won't of course, so I maintain my work schedule and my frugality. But my basic mindset is damn peculiar from other people with money, who become greedy, and suspicious of everyone, because they categorize everyone as trying to 'get' 'their stuff'. I don't.

And I want, more than anything else, to be able to give up 'my stuff' because we've achieved a fair world.

There is no need for "I would give up everything I have - in a heartbeat, as they say - if it would guarantee a fair world." I've got a list of minor changes, none of which will happen, to improve the functioning of the Federal Government:

An unsatisfying litany of heavy political lifts, most of which will fail, and each of which on its own would only mildly improve matters if adopted. We should abolish the filibuster and Electoral College and eliminate midterm elections by having the House, Senate, and president serve concurrent four-year terms. We should adopt the Fair Representation Act to end gerrymandering and move toward proportional representation. We need a robust right to vote in the Constitution, public financing for elections, and more transparency for corporate and nonprofit political spending.

These seem like ambitious reforms, and in all likelihood most of them will fail, leaving us in a perhaps mildly better version of the morass we’re in now. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event we make them all happen, a number of core problems in our politics will remain. You can’t legislate negative partisanship away, and you can’t entirely prevent corporations and the wealthy from exerting some degree of oligarchic power without trampling on freedom of speech.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/23/17233952/trump-democracy-dec
ay-decline-coup-war-collapse-impeachment

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 1:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
White trash think that dividing money equally with people they despise will mean far less money for white trash. But the white trash of America will never get the money they think they deserve unless Mexicans, niggers, queers and women also get a much bigger share of the wealth.
It's not true that one group will prosper only if other groups prosper, which is the only argument in favor of identity politics.

That argument is the fallacy of identity politics. Through it we are being played by identity politics into an unstated zero-sum game. The notion is that it's OK to be pitted against each other for survival, as long as the fight is FAIR. But it doesn't matter how FAIRLY we are judged in the arena. There will be the winners at the expense of the losers. If some groups rise it will be because other groups fall. It's still the same zero-sum game.

Democrats - or some new party that rises up out of the ashes - need to specifically reject the notion that people being FAIRLY pitted against each other for survival is the end goal.

The end goal should be to raise us all up. Together.
The zero-sum game that should be played is the one where the wealthy lose to everyone poorer. But that is not the game that Congress will allow to be played.

Your endorsement of Communism and your redistribution fantasies are not shared by as many as you imagine.

Thankfully, for America's sake.

How did kiki get sucked into this thread?

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 1:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
How did kiki get sucked into this thread?

I'm a registered democrat, from way back when, when democrats stood for the working class; and unlike the 'independent' person who started this thread 'for democrats only'.

But democrats have gone off the rails with identity politics, and with not looking after the 99%.

White people know that it's a zero sum system, which they previously won by virtue of their whiteness. They know that the more you promote 'other', the less will be reserved for whites. Racism (sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc) aren't as random and pointless as they seem. They're about economic security reserved for specific groups.

The author SECOND extensively quoted made the assertion that identity politics drives benefit for all. But that can't possibly be true in the system we have now, where my gain must be your loss. And if democrats hew to identity politics as a winning strategy, they will drive away the white vote which understands the outcome for whites of identity politics, and whose votes democrats can ill afford to lose.

The winning strategy is to call for opportunity for all who want it. And that means expanding the benefits of society past the current zero sum system.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:
Is the Two-Party System Doomed?

No. It's not. It's all just an illusion that's maintained to make the people believe they have any say in what goes on. There might be two parties that look different than they do today in the future. There might even be three or four. That's not going to make things change at all.

Our perception of what the Two-Party System is may be Doomed. But whatever form it morphs into will continue on as it always has.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
6ixStringJoker, when the Federal government started in 1789, people like you had absolutely no say in picking George Washington or what the laws were. No slaves voted. No women voted. No men voted unless they owned significant property. We are still living in that exact same system with the same Constitution that George Washington signed, with a few minor adjustments. Why are you surprised that nobody will listen to you? The Constitution was never designed to make life comfortable for people like you or to give your life any meaning.

I'm not surprised that nobody will listen to me. Your voice is going to get drowned out when there's 7 billion other voices.

What I find funny is when anybody thinks that their own voice matters to anybody but themselves.

News flash....

It don't.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:05 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Our perception of what the Two-Party System is may be Doomed. But whatever form it morphs into will continue on as it always has.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
6ixStringJoker, when the Federal government started in 1789, people like you had absolutely no say in picking George Washington or what the laws were. ... Why are you surprised that nobody will listen to you? The Constitution was never designed to make life comfortable for people like you or to give your life any meaning.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not surprised that nobody will listen to me. Your voice is going to get drowned out when there's 7 billion other voices.
What I find funny is when anybody thinks that their own voice matters to anybody but themselves.
News flash....
It don't.

I think there's a gap between being 'listened to' as in 'obeyed' which is what SECOND seems to be referring to, and 'listened to' as in 'heard' which you seem to be referring to.

No one is going to 'obey' any of the hoi polloi (which includes me, btw). And - probably - 7 billion people aren't going to 'hear' you either, unless you have something very relevant to say, at a time and in a manner that they understand. But you can be heard small scale.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:27 AM (P)

All I was saying was that nobody has any power when it comes to doing anything against whatever the Government ultimately wants. There is no two party system. Only the illusion of one.

Second turned that into just another opportunity to talk about how much money he supposedly has and how much better he is than everybody else because of it. Second is Second's favorite subject.

Whateves...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
All I was saying was that nobody has any power when it comes to doing anything against whatever the Government ultimately wants. There is no two party system. Only the illusion of one.

I guess it depends if we're intelligent or if we're mixed bacteria on a petri dish, on a mindless path to doom. If we're just mixed bacteria on a petri dish then some strains will temporarily overtake others and all will gobble up the food, excreting waste, until there's nothing left but a dead, waste-filled petri dish. But if we're intelligent we'll understand the problem, communicate the solution, use the power of numbers, and reverse what we're doing.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 4:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
All I was saying was that nobody has any power when it comes to doing anything against whatever the Government ultimately wants. There is no two party system. Only the illusion of one.
I guess it depends if we're intelligent or if we're mixed bacteria on a petri dish, on a mindless path to doom. If we're just mixed bacteria on a petri dish then some strains will temporarily overtake others and all will gobble up the food, excreting waste, until there's nothing left but a dead, waste-filled petri dish. But if we're intelligent we'll understand the problem, communicate the solution, use the power of numbers, and reverse what we're doing.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

I'm pretty sure the only reason we've never even accidentally been bumped into by any alien species is because none of them evolved to the point of any significant form of space travel before they sealed their own fate, or bad luck did it for them.

The ones that did, probably this:

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 6:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Your endorsement of Communism and your redistribution fantasies are not shared by as many as you imagine.

Thankfully, for America's sake.

How did kiki get sucked into this thread?

My other fantasy is that Texas never joined the Union. Long live the Republic of Texas! Long live Sam Houston, our first President! I would much prefer a national holiday celebrating Houston's Birthday to Washington's Birthday.

The reason for that fantasy is that Texas is trapped within the 1788 Constitution by the whims of the Senators from the other 49 states. Do you realize how difficult it is to get 67 people out of 100 to all agree on something substantial? About the only time is when it's war, and even then the Senators prefer not to vote on that because they don't want the blame when the war goes badly. Let the President of the United States take the blame years and years after most Senators cheered for more war.

The U.S. Senators from Texas can be pretty cavalier about war since most of the dead soldiers will be coming from 49 other states. But if Texas was a nation going to war, all the dead would be Texans. The whole war is completely paid for and fought by Texans. That would certainly cool the Texas President's enthusiasm for war. It also explains why U.S. Presidents are very enthusiastic about wars where most of the casualties and costs will be paid by 49 other states, states where the President was not born. U.S. Presidents are more cautious when their own children fight the war the President started. There is an editorial about that by the son of President Eisenhower. www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28eisenhower.html

A short quote for those who need everything explained, but seldom click the links: As the time for my deployment to the Korean War approached, I discussed my intentions with my father, future President Eisenhower. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
All I was saying was that nobody has any power when it comes to doing anything against whatever the Government ultimately wants. There is no two party system. Only the illusion of one.
I guess it depends if we're intelligent or if we're mixed bacteria on a petri dish, on a mindless path to doom. If we're just mixed bacteria on a petri dish then some strains will temporarily overtake others and all will gobble up the food, excreting waste, until there's nothing left but a dead, waste-filled petri dish. But if we're intelligent we'll understand the problem, communicate the solution, use the power of numbers, and reverse what we're doing.

Who is this "we" in your sentence that begins "But if we're intelligent"? That "we" can't be 6ixStringJack, because he has turned himself into a peasant. He will not "reverse what we're doing." In China, that "we" was people like The Most Wanted Man in China: My Journey from Scientist to Enemy of the State by Fang Lizhi
www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/05/26/fang-lizhi-heritage-great-man/

Why did communism grow deep roots and survive in China, while it withered and died in Russia? This is one of the central questions of modern history. A plausible answer to the question is that communism in China resonated with the two-thousand-year-old Confucian tradition of the wise ruler governing a harmonious society of peaceful citizens, while communism in Russia was undermined by the Russian tradition of ruthless tsars like Ivan the Terrible ruling a lawless society of oligarchs and serfs. (If you are comparing, the American tradition is too much like the Russian and not at all like the Chinese tradition.)

This answer may be valid, but the recently published autobiography of Fang Lizhi suggests a different answer to the question. Fang’s book is the personal story of a scientist whose life was shaped by Chinese history. From the evidence provided by this book, I am led to believe that communism survived in China because the brutal reeducation of the elite, by exile to coal mines and villages and forced sharing of hardships with dirt-poor workers and peasants, was to some extent a genuine reeducation. A great many members of the elite endured a period of gross abuse and humiliation, so severe as to drive many of them to suicide. Fang — who died in 2012 — describes four of these personal tragedies that he remembered vividly when he wrote his book thirty years later. But the majority of the victims, like Fang, survived the physical and mental battering, and returned to pursue careers as leaders of society. They became a privileged and corrupt class, but had acquired some indelible firsthand knowledge of the real needs and desires of the Chinese people.

In Russia there was much talk of reeducation of the elite, but the reality was different. In Russia the purges killed large numbers of the elite and condemned others to long years of imprisonment in the gulag archipelago, but those who survived were not re-educated. The intellectuals who survived in Russia remained isolated from the realities of working-class existence. The working class in the minds of the rulers of Russia remained an intellectual abstraction, detached from contact with reality. (The American ruling class is detached from the reality of working-class existence. Why would American rulers do more than the minimum to get elected? Doing more would lower the income of the rulers, cause extra work for the rulers, and it would all be for the benefit of working-class people the rulers don't identify with, except on election day. And America has always been this way. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have taken better care of their slaves if slaves could vote, but the day after election the slaves have to return to the cotton fields while their owners return to the mansions. The owners refuse to live at the level of t

SECOND

Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:32 PM (P)

Mick Mulvaney Tells It Like It Is
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/mick-mulvaney-tells-it-like-it-
is/

Mick Mulvaney has been running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since November:

Since then, he has frozen all new investigations into crooked loans and slowed down existing inquiries by requiring employees to produce detailed justifications….But he wants Congress to go further and has urged it to wrest funding of the independent watchdog from the Federal Reserve, a move that would give lawmakers — and those with access to them — more influence on the bureau’s actions. On Tuesday, he implored the financial services industry to help support the legislative changes he has requested.

He concluded the speech, which included an appeal to diminish the bureau’s power, by describing the two types of people he was most responsive to as a congressman— constituents and lobbyists who contributed to his campaign.

Please proceed, Mr. Mulvaney:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lending industry officials at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

That seems bracingly clear. Most politicians don’t have either the arrogance or the cluelessness it would take to admit this in public, but Mulvaney does. Kudos.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your endorsement of Communism and your redistribution fantasies are not shared by as many as you imagine.

Thankfully, for America's sake.

How did kiki get sucked into this thread?
My other fantasy is that Texas never joined the Union. Long live the Republic of Texas! Long live Sam Houston, our first President! I would much prefer a national holiday celebrating Houston's Birthday to Washington's Birthday.

The reason for that fantasy is that Texas is trapped within the 1788 Constitution by the whims of the Senators from the other 49 states. Do you realize how difficult it is to get 67 people out of 100 to all agree on something substantial? About the only time is when it's war, and even then the Senators prefer not to vote on that because they don't want the blame when the war goes badly. Let the President of the United States take the blame years and years after most Senators cheered for more war.

The U.S. Senators from Texas can be pretty cavalier about war since most of the dead soldiers will be coming from 49 other states. But if Texas was a nation going to war, all the dead would be Texans. The whole war is completely paid for and fought by Texans. That would certainly cool the Texas President's enthusiasm for war. It also explains why U.S. Presidents are very enthusiastic about wars where most of the casualties and costs will be paid by 49 other states, states where the President was not born. U.S. Presidents are more cautious when their own children fight the war the President started. There is an editorial about that by the son of President Eisenhower. www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28eisenhower.html

A short quote for those who need everything explained, but seldom click the links: As the time for my deployment to the Korean War approached, I discussed my intentions with my father, future President Eisenhower. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.

Golly, is this the delusion where President Eisenhower started the Korean War?
Your re-education shows impressive results.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
All I was saying was that nobody has any power when it comes to doing anything against whatever the Government ultimately wants. There is no two party system. Only the illusion of one.
I guess it depends if we're intelligent or if we're mixed bacteria on a petri dish, on a mindless path to doom. If we're just mixed bacteria on a petri dish then some strains will temporarily overtake others and all will gobble up the food, excreting waste, until there's nothing left but a dead, waste-filled petri dish. But if we're intelligent we'll understand the problem, communicate the solution, use the power of numbers, and reverse what we're doing.
Who is this "we" in your sentence that begins "But if we're intelligent"? That "we" can't be 6ixStringJack, because he has turned himself into a peasant. He will not "reverse what we're doing."

Second posts the above before posting the following story (emphasis on the underlined text):

Quote:
In China, that "we" was people like The Most Wanted Man in China: My Journey from Scientist to Enemy of the State by Fang Lizhi
www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/05/26/fang-lizhi-heritage-great-man/

Why did communism grow deep roots and survive in China, while it withered and died in Russia? This is one of the central questions of modern history. A plausible answer to the question is that communism in China resonated with the two-thousand-year-old Confucian tradition of the wise ruler governing a harmonious society of peaceful citizens, while communism in Russia was undermined by the Russian tradition of ruthless tsars like Ivan the Terrible ruling a lawless society of oligarchs and serfs. (If you are comparing, the American tradition is too much like the Russian and not at all like the Chinese tradition.)

This answer may be valid, but the recently published autobiography of Fang Lizhi suggests a different answer to the question. Fang’s book is the personal story of a scientist whose life was shaped by Chinese history. From the evidence provided by this book, I am led to believe that communism survived in China because the brutal reeducation of the elite, by exile to coal mines and villages and forced sharing of hardships with dirt-poor workers and peasants, was to some extent a genuine reeducation. A great many members of the elite endured a period of gross abuse and humiliation, so severe as to drive many of them to suicide. Fang — who died in 2012 — describes four of these personal tragedies that he remembered vividly when he wrote his book thirty years later. But the majority of the victims, like Fang, survived the physical and mental battering, and returned to pursue careers as leaders of society. They became a privileged and corrupt class, but had acquired some indelible firsthand knowledge of the real needs and desires of the Chinese people.

In Russia there was much talk of reeducation of the elite, but the reality was different. In Russia the purges killed large numbers of the elite and condemned others to long years of imprisonment in the gulag archipelago, but those who survived were not re-educated. The intellectuals who survived in Russia remained isolated from the realities of working-class existence. The working class in the minds of the rulers of Russia remained an intellectual abstraction, detached from contact with reality. (The American ruling class is detached from the reality of working-class existence. Why would American rulers do more than the minimum to get elected? Doing more would lower the income of the rulers, cause extra work for the rulers, and it would all be for the benefit of working-class people the rulers don't identify with, except on election day. And America has always been this way. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have taken better care of their slaves if slaves cou

SECOND

Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:34 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Golly, is this the delusion where President Eisenhower started the Korean War?
Your re-education shows impressive results.

Instead of being captured in Korea, President Eisenhower asked his son to kill himself because Eisenhower would resign the Presidency if his son was captured alive. Since then, no President has told a son to commit suicide because no President had children actually fighting a war. That makes it so much easier for America to go to war when the President has no skin in the game. Maybe super-patriots Trump Jr. and Eric Trump should join the Army in protecting America? They go big game hunting in Africa, so why not join the Army and hunt the most dangerous big game animals in the world: humans. That would give their daddy something to think about before he starts threatening Fire and Fury the likes of which the World has never seen before.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, April 26, 2018 3:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Maybe super-patriots Trump Jr. and Eric Trump should join the Army in protecting America? They go big game hunting in Africa, so why not join the Army and hunt the most dangerous big game animals in the world: humans. That would give their daddy something to think about before he starts threatening Fire and Fury the likes of which the World has never seen before.

Yeah. Obama probably wasn't thinking about his daughters much when he was putting his rubber stamp on drone strikes that were killing women and children either.

I see you changed the subject without replying to me.

I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Saturday, April 28, 2018 5:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I see you changed the subject without replying to me.

I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote

{Second, you have:} No empathy. No understanding. No appreciation.

The one percenters do have a little bit of those qualities. But America is built on extraordinary selfishness. It is number one on the list. Even if Americans became extraordinarily empathetic (which they aren’t once you look at what percent of their income they give to charity) they will fight against helping anyone beneath them if Americans think helping will reduce their own income. It is pure and extreme American selfishness that Americans don’t want to acknowledge in themselves.

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote

I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .

Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.

Quote:
A typical amount that people aspire to donate to charity ranges from 3 percent to 10 percent of their taxed income, and often is influenced by religious affiliation. Some branches of Christianity, for example, encourage their followers to donate 10 percent of their earnings to the church or to charities.

To bring the lower 50% of Americans up to the level of upper 50%, the median-priced American’s level, will cost a whole lot more than 10%. Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security. I remember 6ixStringJack has bitched about his FICA tax. At least middle-class Americans pay the tax because they can imagine themselves being old someday, but they cannot imagine being poor. They really don’t want to help the poor. Americans want somebody, not themselves, to pay. Preferably the poor will pay for raising the poor out of poverty. That is not a practical way to end poverty, but people who are not poor are too selfish to admit it is impractical. They just refuse to pay more than 2 cents to do a job that will benefit somebody other than themselves.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Saturday, April 28, 2018 5:23 PM (P)

'Fox & Friends' Couldn't Get Trump Off The Phone

The three hosts of 'Fox & Friends' couldn't get a word in during the President's half-hour filibuster on live television. The facial expressions and body posture of the hosts towards the end of Trump's phone call was priceless.

Chris Hayes Talks About Trump's Surreal Fox & Friends Interview

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, April 28, 2018 6:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I see you changed the subject without replying to me.

I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote

{Second, you have:} No empathy. No understanding. No appreciation.
The one percenters do have a little bit of those qualities. But America is built on extraordinary selfishness. It is number one on the list. Even if Americans became extraordinarily empathetic (which they aren’t once you look at what percent of their income they give to charity) they will fight against helping anyone beneath them if Americans think helping will reduce their own income. It is pure and extreme American selfishness that Americans don’t want to acknowledge in themselves.
Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote

I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .
Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
Quote:
A typical amount that people aspire to donate to charity ranges from 3 percent to 10 percent of their taxed income, and often is influenced by religious affiliation. Some branches of Christianity, for example, encourage their followers to donate 10 percent of their earnings to the church or to charities.
To bring the lower 50% of Americans up to the level of upper 50%, the median-priced American’s level, will cost a whole lot more than 10%. Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security. I remember 6ixStringJack has bitched about his FICA tax. At least middle-class Americans pay the tax because they can imagine themselves being old someday, but they cannot imagine being poor. They really don’t want to help the poor. Americans want somebody, not themselves, to pay. Preferably the poor will pay for raising the poor out of poverty. That is not a practical way to end poverty, but people who are not poor are too selfish to admit it is impractical. They just refuse to pay more than 2 cents to do a job that will benefit somebody other than themselves.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

I can't really argue any of what you posted here. Sure, it's all generalizations and there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but not enough to argue any points you made.

I think everybody should be poor once in their lives.

I'm working my way back to levels that are personally comfortable to me, and it will take time and effort, but I flirted on the fringes there for quite a while. I was on just about every form of government subsidies that a single man who isn't elderly or disabled could get.

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death.

2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to main

SECOND

Saturday, April 28, 2018 8:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death. . . .

America can already afford to change its mind about starving and freezing to death, but the majority voter opinion doesn't change. I checked about affordability: the GDP is $20 trillion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year
https://goo.gl/tgWHLs

Even if America did spend $1 trillion on welfare (it doesn’t) a trillion is only 5% of the GDP. To get everyone up into the middle class, much more ambitious than preventing everyone from freezing and starving to death, will cost much more than 5%. The people already in the middle class do not want to pay even to prevent starving and freezing. They sure as hell won't pay to raise everyone into middle class. The lower 50% of the Americans will continue struggling until the upper 50% will pay enough to end the struggle. But the upper 50% vote more than the lower 50%. As their incomes approach the upper 1%, voter participation approaches 100%. As their incomes approach the bottom 10%, voter participation approaches 0%. Bernie said poor people don't vote. Poor people are screwed by those voters in the middle class.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/24/bernie-s/berni
e-sanders-said-poor-people-dont-vote/

What does the government spend most money on? It is not on poverty programs:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts
/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 28, 2018 11:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
My arguments with JSF recently surrounding the DOW and Food Stamps are reflections of my own evolution of thought on these issues based off of my new perspective. I used to think that the DOW was great for everybody, until I realized that it is a catalyst for the loss of jobs and wages and benefits, and the money that investors make is off the backs of the American working class.

It was never really great for everybody, only for those who partook. The opportunity for partaking has been growing.
Quote:
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them
Well that is interesting. I never thought that people on Food Stamps were worthless and undeserving. I can't even understand how you could honestly think that. I only objected to the cheats, the frauds, the thieves - which mostly accounted for the Food Stamp recipients who I had personally known about.

Quote:
until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for those who actually have to try to make ends meet on the same pay scale while also paying for housing and oftentimes even raising children on it.

No empathy. No understanding. No appreciation.

There would be no 1% without the 99%.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You also appear to ignore that the money that is invested is what provides jobs for the workers to work.
In that way, the workers are taking advantage of the investors, and in many cases are squandering away the funds that the investors are providing.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 28, 2018 11:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Golly, is this the delusion where President Eisenhower started the Korean War?
Your re-education shows impressive results.
Instead of being captured in Korea, President Eisenhower asked his son to kill himself because Eisenhower would resign the Presidency if his son was captured alive.

You stated that this was after Eisenhower, as President, started the Korean War.
For those unclear about history, the Korean War from June 1950 to July 1953 altered the division of the Korean Peninsula between the Democratic half (Communists of North Korea) and the Republic half (Free and Liberated people of South Korea). For those who have heard of the Winter at the 38th Parallel, in America the 38th crosses the nation at approximately the bottom tip of Indiana, and the Port of San Francisco, including the middle of MO and KS, and the bottom half of CO, UT, NV.
Eisenhower attained the Presidency in 1953, and months later the Armistice was signed. Only in Libtard History was Eisenhower President in 1950.

On an entirely separate issue:

Quote:
Since then, no President has told a son to commit suicide because no President had children actually fighting a war. That makes it so much easier for America to go to war when the President has no skin in the game. Maybe super-patriots Trump Jr. and Eric Trump should join the Army in protecting America?

For someone who claims to have been Commissioned in the Marines, you seem to possess an amazing lack of Military History comprehension. Have your meds retarded your recall, or memory?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, April 29, 2018 1:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see you changed the subject without replying to me.
I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .
Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security.

Maybe they just resent being lied to. The Ponzi Scheme called Social Security was never presented, proposed, discussed, or enacted as a Tax. It was presented as a contribution to a fund which you, yourself would draw from, depending upon how much you contributed. Only Taxaholic Libtards and other Democraps would consider it a Tax, completely divorcing it from it's legislation.
Quote:
Quote:
I remember 6ixStringJack has bitched about his FICA tax.
I can't really argue any of what you posted here. Sure, it's all generalizations and there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but not enough to argue any points you made.

I think everybody should be poor once in their lives.

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death.
If they don't like it they should return to their Mexico home, where it is warm.

Quote:
2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to maintain them, by doing things like actively turning down extra shifts.

I make too much money hourly to get them even if I were to intentionally curb my hours, because you can't get them unless you work 20 hours per week.

With all the terrible spending choices our government makes with our tax dollars, you'll never hear me bitching again about food stamps. I don't envy any person who makes so little that they can be eligible to get them, and I'm happy to know that a part of my taxes go to help feed them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, April 29, 2018 5:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death. . . .
America can already afford to change its mind about starving and freezing to death, but the majority voter opinion doesn't change. I checked about affordability: the GDP is $20 trillion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year
https://goo.gl/tgWHLs

Even if America did spend $1 trillion on welfare (it doesn’t) a trillion is only 5% of the GDP. To get everyone up into the middle class, much more ambitious than preventing everyone from freezing and starving to death, will cost much more than 5%. The people already in the middle class do not want to pay even to prevent starving and freezing. They sure as hell won't pay to raise everyone into middle class. The lower 50% of the Americans will continue struggling until the upper 50% will pay enough to end the struggle. But the upper 50% vote more than the lower 50%. As their incomes approach the upper 1%, voter participation approaches 100%. As their incomes approach the bottom 10%, voter participation approaches 0%. Bernie said poor people don't vote. Poor people are screwed by those voters in the middle class.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/24/bernie-s/berni
e-sanders-said-poor-people-dont-vote/

What does the government spend most money on? It is not on poverty programs:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts
/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

I didn't say anything about raising the poor to middle class.

If everyone is middle class then everyone is poor. I'm not advocating for Communism here. All I'm saying is that I'm definitely pro food stamps, and of all the things I maintain my right to bitch about where my taxes go, you won't hear me bitching about food stamps again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, April 29, 2018 5:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.

This post doesn't really even deserve a reply since I have a long track record against supporting illegal aliens.

Though I don't support the idea of a physical wall that is nothing more than a ridiculously expensive form of "security theater", there are plenty of ways to make it so that nobody who wasn't a citizen would ever want to even be here. Most of them would be a very cheap addition to what the IRS already does, so it would start paying for itself from day one.

Should we make sure nobody starves that doesn't live here? Sure. We'll keep them well fed on their ride back home. Then when the laws are sufficiently changed and upheld so that nobody without a valid social security number can get free education and medical care or be able to make any wages here, they won't bother coming back.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 30, 2018 1:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.
This post doesn't really even deserve a reply since I have a long track record against supporting illegal aliens.

Then why are you endorsing Illegal Alien criminals (wastefully) receiving Food Stamps, diverting resources away from (nonwasteful) needy and legitimate American Citizens?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 30, 2018 2:26 AM (P)

I didn't.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 30, 2018 3:32 AM (P)

Reposted after completing the post:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see you changed the subject without replying to me.
I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .
Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security.

Quote:
2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to maintain them, by doing things like actively turning down extra shifts.

I make too much money hourly to get them even if I were to intentionally curb my hours, because you can't get them unless you work 20 hours per week.

With all the terrible spending choices our government makes with our tax dollars, you'll never hear me bitching again about food stamps. I don't envy any person who makes so little that they can be eligible to get them, and I'm happy to know that a part of my taxes go to help feed them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.

SECOND

Monday, April 30, 2018 5:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Maybe they just resent being lied to. The Ponzi Scheme called Social Security was never presented, proposed, discussed, or enacted as a Tax. It was presented as a contribution to a fund which you, yourself would draw from, depending upon how much you contributed. Only Taxaholic Libtards and other Democraps would consider it a Tax, completely divorcing it from it's legislation.

JewelStaiteFan, your life is hard because you lost touch with reality. It is a tax. What is FICA? www.ssa.gov/thirdparty/materials/pdfs/educators/What-is-FICA-Infograph
ic-EN-05-10297.pdf
FICA is a U.S. federal payroll tax. It stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and is deducted from each paycheck. Your nine-digit number helps Social Security accurately record your covered wages or self-employment. As you work and pay FICA taxes, you earn credits for Social Security benefits.

How much is coming out of my check?
6.2% of your gross wages goes to Social Security tax. 1.45% of your gross wages goes to Medicare tax. Your employer matches these percentages for a total of 15.3%

An estimated 171 million workers are covered under Social Security. FICA helps fund both Social Security and Medicare programs, which provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children.

Think about FICA like this...
The money you pay in taxes is not held in a personal account for you to use when you get benefits. Today’s workers help pay for current retirees’ and other beneficiaries’ benefits. Any unused money goes to the Social Security trust funds to help secure today and tomorrow for you and your family.

More at www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fica.asp Read it, JewelStaiteFan. Learn what is real.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 30, 2018 6:13 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Reposted after completing the post:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see you changed the subject without replying to me.
I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .
Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security.
Maybe they just resent being lied to. The Ponzi Scheme called Social Security was never presented, proposed, discussed, or enacted as a Tax. It was presented as a contribution to a fund which you, yourself would draw from, depending upon how much you contributed. Only Taxaholic Libtards and other Democraps would consider it a Tax, completely divorcing it from it's legislation.
Quote:
Quote:
I remember 6ixStringJack has bitched about his FICA tax.
I can't really argue any of what you posted here. Sure, it's all generalizations and there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but not enough to argue any points you made.

I think everybody should be poor once in their lives.

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death.
If they don't like it they should return to their Mexico home, where it is warm.
Quote:
2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to maintain them, by doing things like actively turning down extra shifts.

I make too much money hourly to get them even if I were to intentionally curb my hours, because you can't get them unless you work 20 hours per week.

With all the terrible spending choices our government makes with our tax dollars, you'll never hear me bitching again about food stamps. I don't envy any person who makes so little that they can be eligible to get them, and I'm happy to know that a part of my taxes go to help feed them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.

I see what the problem is here.

You're saying the only people who live here without heat and food in this country are Mexicans.

I don't know... Maybe that's as racist as it is untrue?

As for your second time claiming that I'm an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, I'll repost about it since you seemed to have missed it the first time:

Quote:
Though I don't support the idea of a physical wall that is nothing more than a ridiculously expensive form of "security theater", there are plenty of ways to make it so that nobody who wasn't a citizen would ever want to even be here. Most of them would be a very cheap addition to what the IRS alre

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 30, 2018 3:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Reposted after completing the post:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see you changed the subject without replying to me.
I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .
Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security.
Maybe they just resent being lied to. The Ponzi Scheme called Social Security was never presented, proposed, discussed, or enacted as a Tax. It was presented as a contribution to a fund which you, yourself would draw from, depending upon how much you contributed. Only Taxaholic Libtards and other Democraps would consider it a Tax, completely divorcing it from it's legislation.
Quote:
Quote:
I remember 6ixStringJack has bitched about his FICA tax.
I can't really argue any of what you posted here. Sure, it's all generalizations and there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but not enough to argue any points you made.

I think everybody should be poor once in their lives.

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death.
If they don't like it they should return to their Mexico home, where it is warm.
Quote:
2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to maintain them, by doing things like actively turning down extra shifts.

I make too much money hourly to get them even if I were to intentionally curb my hours, because you can't get them unless you work 20 hours per week.

With all the terrible spending choices our government makes with our tax dollars, you'll never hear me bitching again about food stamps. I don't envy any person who makes so little that they can be eligible to get them, and I'm happy to know that a part of my taxes go to help feed them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.
I see what the problem is here.

You're saying the only people who live here without heat and food in this country are Mexicans.

I don't know... Maybe that's as racist as it is untrue?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

No, you are incorrect yet again. No, you do not see.
You keep claiming there is no waste, Fraud, abuse, meaning there are no Illegal Alien parasites consuming our resources.
I keep pointing out that Illegal Aliens fraudulently consume these resources, and for at least this portion of the Food Stamp program, this is waste, fraud, and abuse - diverting resources from legitimate needy Citizens.

SECOND

Monday, April 30, 2018 4:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

No, you are incorrect yet again. No, you do not see.
You keep claiming there is no waste, Fraud, abuse, meaning there are no Illegal Alien parasites consuming our resources.
I keep pointing out that Illegal Aliens fraudulently consume these resources, and for at least this portion of the Food Stamp program, this is waste, fraud, and abuse - diverting resources from legitimate needy Citizens.

As a voting Democrat, I think Trump should get his $25 billion to build the Texas/Mexico wall. Trump will do much more than $25 billion in damage if he shuts down the government, as he promised for September, should Congress not pass funding for the wall.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/mexico-border-wall-donald-trump-planning-mu
ch-will-cost-will/

Trump has all the authority he needs to deport 12 million illegals. What is he waiting for? Why hasn't he done it already? Is it because Republicans don't want to work at the jobs the illegals do?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news/economy/immigrant-workers-jobs/in
dex.html

White Republicans are always whining about that wall and are howling mad about the 12 million illegal aliens doing the low pay jobs of America. Give the Whites the wall and hire all the unemployed White Republicans for those low pay jobs so that the whining and howling will stop. Maybe when 12 million Republicans are working in those low pay jobs left by the illegals, the Republicans will support the Democrats' goal for a higher minimum wage? Seems very fair to me.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 30, 2018 5:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Reposted after completing the post:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see you changed the subject without replying to me.
I'll consider that another checkmate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
6ixStringJack wrote
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them until I made a less than livable wage and found new empathy for . . .
Americans at all levels are selfish as can be. It is not surprising that those at the top are as selfish as those in the middle and bottom. That is why Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
Selfish Americans are NOT that generous. They already bitch endlessly about their taxes to support the old, you know Medicare and Social Security.
Maybe they just resent being lied to. The Ponzi Scheme called Social Security was never presented, proposed, discussed, or enacted as a Tax. It was presented as a contribution to a fund which you, yourself would draw from, depending upon how much you contributed. Only Taxaholic Libtards and other Democraps would consider it a Tax, completely divorcing it from it's legislation.
Quote:
Quote:
I remember 6ixStringJack has bitched about his FICA tax.
I can't really argue any of what you posted here. Sure, it's all generalizations and there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but not enough to argue any points you made.

I think everybody should be poor once in their lives.

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death.
If they don't like it they should return to their Mexico home, where it is warm.
Quote:
2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to maintain them, by doing things like actively turning down extra shifts.

I make too much money hourly to get them even if I were to intentionally curb my hours, because you can't get them unless you work 20 hours per week.

With all the terrible spending choices our government makes with our tax dollars, you'll never hear me bitching again about food stamps. I don't envy any person who makes so little that they can be eligible to get them, and I'm happy to know that a part of my taxes go to help feed them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.
I see what the problem is here.

You're saying the only people who live here without heat and food in this country are Mexicans.

I don't know... Maybe that's as racist as it is untrue?

Do Right, Be Right. :)
No, you are incorrect yet again. No, you do not see.
You keep claiming there is no waste, Fraud, abuse, meaning there are no Illegal Alien parasites consuming our resources.
I keep pointing out that Illegal Aliens fraudulently consume these resources, and for at least this portion of the Food Stamp program, this is waste, fraud, and abuse - diverting resources from legitimate ne

SECOND

Monday, April 30, 2018 6:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

You brought up illegals leaching off the system three times now. I've already said twice that I'm against this, and this will make it the third time. Are you stupid or something?

Do I have to re-quote my post a third fucking time about how we can keep them well fed for their trip back home as they're deported?

What the fuck is wrong with you man? Really.

As those illegals are deported, there are good jobs opening in Michigan for 6ixStringJack: "So severe are looming shortages of workers in the skilled trades in Michigan, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder in February announced a $100 million proposal www.michigan.gov/ted/0,5863,7-336-85008---,00.html he likens to the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II. Using scholarships and stipends, among other things, it would prepare more people for the 811,000 expected job openings through 2024 in industries facing worker shortages, which Michigan officials say don’t require bachelor’s degrees and pay an average of $60,000 a year."
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/04/29/high-paying-jobs-go-begging-w
hile-high-school-grads-line-up-for-bachelors-degrees/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 30, 2018 11:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
No, you are incorrect yet again. No, you do not see.
You keep claiming there is no waste, Fraud, abuse, meaning there are no Illegal Alien parasites consuming our resources.
I keep pointing out that Illegal Aliens fraudulently consume these resources, and for at least this portion of the Food Stamp program, this is waste, fraud, and abuse - diverting resources from legitimate needy Citizens.
As a voting Democrat, I think Trump should get his $25 billion to build the Texas/Mexico wall. Trump will do much more than $25 billion in damage if he shuts down the government, as he promised for September, should Congress not pass funding for the wall.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/mexico-border-wall-donald-trump-planning-mu
ch-will-cost-will/

Trump has all the authority he needs to deport 12 million illegals. What is he waiting for? Why hasn't he done it already? Is it because Republicans don't want to work at the jobs the illegals do?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news/economy/immigrant-workers-jobs/in
dex.html

White Republicans are always whining about that wall and are howling mad about the 12 million illegal aliens doing the low pay jobs of America. Give the Whites the wall and hire all the unemployed White Republicans for those low pay jobs so that the whining and howling will stop. Maybe when 12 million Republicans are working in those low pay jobs left by the illegals, the Republicans will support the Democrats' goal for a higher minimum wage? Seems very fair to me.

If you are ill today, I'm sorry to hear of it. Get well soon.

You have posted a set of comments which almost entirely make sense.
How many Illegal Aliens have been deported under Trump? Although MSM has been downplaying these successes, I still keep hearing about large scale raids all over the place. I thought there was mention of prioritizing the worst criminals and repeat deportees for targeting. It sounds like Sanctuary Cities are effectively corralling many of these, making it easier to round them up, so that's mostly where I hear the best raids occur. Once the worst offenders are processed, do you know of a central database listing the locations of all the remaining illegals? I am not familiar with the process, but once past the border area, are not some legal proceedings navigated before deportation? What is the maximum volume this system can handle? Is there a method of mass deportation which could bypass the process - I have not heard of that. At the maximum volume rate of processing, how long would it take to report 12 million?
I greatly sounds like steady progress is being made, and targeting the worst offenders seems reasonable.

The Law of Supply and Demand will likely take effect before a Minimum Wage Increase is needed, which would cause the Minimum Wage worker to make less, lose buying power.

Other than that, your points sound sensible - leading us to infer you are ill.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 30, 2018 11:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Reposted after completing the post:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I used to think that people on Food Stamps were worthless and didn't deserve them . . .

Food Stamps are part of the agriculture bill – the program has to be sold as helping the farming states make money. The idea can’t be sold as exclusively for helping the hungry.
I can't really argue any of what you posted here. Sure, it's all generalizations and there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but not enough to argue any points you made.

I think everybody should be poor once in their lives.

There's two things to learn when you've lived that way for a while that you can't just explain to somebody because they just wouldn't actually get it unless they had to really live with it for a period of time.

1. Basic things like food and heat during the winter should not be a problem for anybody to acquire. We're supposedly the greatest nation the world has ever seen and yet we still have people starving and freezing to death.
If they don't like it they should return to their Mexico home, where it is warm.
Quote:
2. You've got to really have problems (mental or otherwise) if you actually want to stay on government programs for any prolonged period of time.

Aside from the fact that the Government wants to know everything about you while you're on them, it's actually a lot of effort to get them and maintain them over time. You also have to purposefully curb your work hours to maintain them, by doing things like actively turning down extra shifts.

I make too much money hourly to get them even if I were to intentionally curb my hours, because you can't get them unless you work 20 hours per week.

With all the terrible spending choices our government makes with our tax dollars, you'll never hear me bitching again about food stamps. I don't envy any person who makes so little that they can be eligible to get them, and I'm happy to know that a part of my taxes go to help feed them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Such an advocate for Illegal Alien parasites, you are.
I see what the problem is here.

You're saying the only people who live here without heat and food in this country are Mexicans.

I don't know... Maybe that's as racist as it is untrue?

Do Right, Be Right. :)
No, you are incorrect yet again. No, you do not see.
You keep claiming there is no waste, Fraud, abuse, meaning there are no Illegal Alien parasites consuming our resources.
I keep pointing out that Illegal Aliens fraudulently consume these resources, and for at least this portion of the Food Stamp program, this is waste, fraud, and abuse - diverting resources from legitimate needy Citizens.
You brought up illegals leaching off the system three times now. I've already said twice that I'm against this, and this will make it the third time. Are you stupid or something?

Do I have to re-quote my post a third fucking time about how we can keep them well fed for their trip back home as they're deported?

What the fuck is wrong with you man? Really.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Is this you saying, for the first time, that there is waste, fraud, abuse in the Food Stamp program?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
No, you are incorrect yet again. No, you do not see.
You keep claiming there is no waste, Fraud, abuse, meaning there are no Illegal Alien parasites consuming our resources.
I keep pointing out that Illegal Aliens fraudulently consume these resources, and for at least this portion of the Food Stamp program, this is waste, fraud, and abuse - diverting resources from legitimate needy Citizens.
As a voting Democrat, I think Trump should get his $25 billion to build the Texas/Mexico wall. Trump will do much more than $25 billion in damage if he shuts down the government, as he promised for September, should Congress not pass funding for the wall.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/mexico-border-wall-donald-trump-planning-mu
ch-will-cost-will/

Trump has all the authority he needs to deport 12 million illegals. What is he waiting for? Why hasn't he done it already? Is it because Republicans don't want to work at the jobs the illegals do?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news/economy/immigrant-workers-jobs/in
dex.html

White Republicans are always whining about that wall and are howling mad about the 12 million illegal aliens doing the low pay jobs of America. Give the Whites the wall and hire all the unemployed White Republicans for those low pay jobs so that the whining and howling will stop. Maybe when 12 million Republicans are working in those low pay jobs left by the illegals, the Republicans will support the Democrats' goal for a higher minimum wage? Seems very fair to me.
If you are ill today, I'm sorry to hear of it. Get well soon.

You have posted a set of comments which almost entirely make sense.
How many Illegal Aliens have been deported under Trump? Although MSM has been downplaying these successes, I still keep hearing about large scale raids all over the place. I thought there was mention of prioritizing the worst criminals and repeat deportees for targeting. It sounds like Sanctuary Cities are effectively corralling many of these, making it easier to round them up, so that's mostly where I hear the best raids occur. Once the worst offenders are processed, do you know of a central database listing the locations of all the remaining illegals? I am not familiar with the process, but once past the border area, are not some legal proceedings navigated before deportation? What is the maximum volume this system can handle? Is there a method of mass deportation which could bypass the process - I have not heard of that. At the maximum volume rate of processing, how long would it take to report 12 million?
I greatly sounds like steady progress is being made, and targeting the worst offenders seems reasonable.

The Law of Supply and Demand will likely take effect before a Minimum Wage Increase is needed, which would cause the Minimum Wage worker to make less, lose buying power.

Other than that, your points sound sensible - leading us to infer you are ill.

MSM just reported that the 1,500 riot thugs of the Obama/Hilliary/Soros-San Diego Pueblo Sin Fronteros caravan from Honduras have already clogged the system. Some cannot currently be processed because the system is already at maximum capacity. And that is just to turn away from the border the Fake Asylum thugs waving the Honduran Flag.
Apparently they also brought some women and children to be human shields.

SECOND

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

If you are ill today, I'm sorry to hear of it. Get well soon.

You have posted a set of comments which almost entirely make sense.
How many Illegal Aliens have been deported under Trump? Although MSM has been downplaying these successes, I still keep hearing about large scale raids all over the place. I thought there was mention of prioritizing the worst criminals and repeat deportees for targeting. It sounds like Sanctuary Cities are effectively corralling many of these, making it easier to round them up, so that's mostly where I hear the best raids occur. Once the worst offenders are processed, do you know of a central database listing the locations of all the remaining illegals? I am not familiar with the process, but once past the border area, are not some legal proceedings navigated before deportation? What is the maximum volume this system can handle? Is there a method of mass deportation which could bypass the process - I have not heard of that. At the maximum volume rate of processing, how long would it take to report 12 million?
I greatly sounds like steady progress is being made, and targeting the worst offenders seems reasonable.

The Law of Supply and Demand will likely take effect before a Minimum Wage Increase is needed, which would cause the Minimum Wage worker to make less, lose buying power.

Other than that, your points sound sensible - leading us to infer you are ill.

ICE conducted 226,119 removals. If there are 12 million illegals divided by 226,119, it will take 53 years to remove most of the illegals. I would say Trump is not really trying very hard. I do not think he is serious. Except it is worse than 53 years to remove all the illegals because most of the 226,119 that get deported have only been in the US for a few months. Trump is not making much of a dent in the long-term illegals. It might take 100 years for Trump to deport 12 million illegals at the rate he is working. I think Trump is doing more bullshitting than deporting. The guy is Fake News.

www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2017

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this you saying, for the first time, that there is waste, fraud, abuse in the Food Stamp program?

I never said there wasn't waste and fraud. I simply said that the benefits of the program outweigh the cons, and the fact that there is a foodstamp program is one of the only things keeping you from getting burglarized or held up at knife or gunpoint for money for food.

I've said that to weed out people who shouldn't be on it would likely cost more taxpayer dollars to figure out than just paying people because at some point the cost of the additional oversight would be more than the benefits themselves.

I've also said four times now that I stand adamantly against illegal aliens and how they leach off the system. This however, is not a food stamp problem. It is a much larger problem that needs to be taken care of at the core. Cut the inflow of illegal alien leaches to the system by immediately making it impossible for them to get any free government programs, including foodstamps, education and helth care, and by enforcing tax laws we already have, making it impossible for them to actually make any money here to send home and they will go back to their country of their own volition, and no more will want to come here.

Then what seems to be your largest issue with the food stamp program becomes moot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:11 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
ICE conducted 226,119 removals. If there are 12 million illegals divided by 226,119, it will take 53 years to remove most of the illegals. I would say Trump is not really trying very hard. I do not think he is serious. Except it is worse than 53 years to remove all the illegals because most of the 226,119 that get deported have only been in the US for a few months. Trump is not making much of a dent in the long-term illegals. It might take 100 years for Trump to deport 12 million illegals at the rate he is working. I think Trump is doing more bullshitting than deporting. The guy is Fake News.

Deportation is just as stupid and a waste of money as building a wall is.

If somebody were serious about keeping illegals out they would make it impossible for them to make any money here and send it home through tax laws and absolutely destroying any companies found hiring them under the table.

Couple that with immediately cutting illegals, even those born here by illegal parents, from any government benefits and they will go back home on their own dime, with no cost to the American taxpayer.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this you saying, for the first time, that there is waste, fraud, abuse in the Food Stamp program?

I never said there wasn't waste and fraud. I simply said that the benefits of the program outweigh the cons, and the fact that there is a foodstamp program is one of the only things keeping you from getting burglarized or held up at knife or gunpoint for money for food.

I've said that to weed out people who shouldn't be on it would likely cost more taxpayer dollars to figure out than just paying people because at some point the cost of the additional oversight would be more than the benefits themselves.

I've also said four times now that I stand adamantly against illegal aliens and how they leach off the system. This however, is not a food stamp problem. It is a much larger problem that needs to be taken care of at the core. Cut the inflow of illegal alien leaches to the system by immediately making it impossible for them to get any free government programs, including foodstamps, education and helth care, and by enforcing tax laws we already have, making it impossible for them to actually make any money here to send home and they will go back to their country of their own volition, and no more will want to come here.

Then what seems to be your largest issue with the food stamp program becomes moot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

If 1% are legitimately needy and over 14% are participating, you claim that weeding out the 93% of fraudulent claims would cost more than paying for the 93%?
That doesn't sound right.

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 5:06 AM (P)

"If 1% are legitimately needy and over 14% are participating" cite?

I'm curious what the actual numbers are.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

SECOND

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 5:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
ICE conducted 226,119 removals. If there are 12 million illegals divided by 226,119, it will take 53 years to remove most of the illegals. I would say Trump is not really trying very hard. I do not think he is serious. Except it is worse than 53 years to remove all the illegals because most of the 226,119 that get deported have only been in the US for a few months. Trump is not making much of a dent in the long-term illegals. It might take 100 years for Trump to deport 12 million illegals at the rate he is working. I think Trump is doing more bullshitting than deporting. The guy is Fake News.

Deportation is just as stupid and a waste of money as building a wall is.

If somebody were serious about keeping illegals out they would make it impossible for them to make any money here and send it home through tax laws and absolutely destroying any companies found hiring them under the table.

Couple that with immediately cutting illegals, even those born here by illegal parents, from any government benefits and they will go back home on their own dime, with no cost to the American taxpayer.

Always worried about the cost and never worry about results. That will guarantee failure.

The cost of the Texas/Mexico wall is $25 billion. And that is not every year. It is one time cost.

The cost to remove 12 million illegal aliens at $2,000 each is $24 billion.

The total is $49 billion. That is a small price to get Republicans to finally shut up.

It is smaller than Trump’s increase in Pentagon spending by $74 billion to a new world record defense budget of $716 billion for fiscal 2019.

The $74 billion defense increase is EVERY STINKING YEAR while the $49 billion is one time only.

The $74 billion defense increase will not have anything you can point to and say “this is what my money bought” while the $49 billion will buy you a thousand mile long wall and 12 million new jobs for legal citizens and there will be 12 million empty apartments and houses where the illegals had once lived. There will be cheaper rent for everybody still living in the USA.

And don't forget all those new American jobs openings the illegals graciously left behind for people like 6ixStringJack.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-defense-20180212-story.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 7:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If 1% are legitimately needy and over 14% are participating" cite?

I'm curious what the actual numbers are.

Yeah. These are numbers that have been quoted many times now without anything to back them up. Probably heard Rush Limbaugh say it once or something.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 7:18 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
ICE conducted 226,119 removals. If there are 12 million illegals divided by 226,119, it will take 53 years to remove most of the illegals. I would say Trump is not really trying very hard. I do not think he is serious. Except it is worse than 53 years to remove all the illegals because most of the 226,119 that get deported have only been in the US for a few months. Trump is not making much of a dent in the long-term illegals. It might take 100 years for Trump to deport 12 million illegals at the rate he is working. I think Trump is doing more bullshitting than deporting. The guy is Fake News.

Deportation is just as stupid and a waste of money as building a wall is.

If somebody were serious about keeping illegals out they would make it impossible for them to make any money here and send it home through tax laws and absolutely destroying any companies found hiring them under the table.

Couple that with immediately cutting illegals, even those born here by illegal parents, from any government benefits and they will go back home on their own dime, with no cost to the American taxpayer.
Always worried about the cost and never worry about results. That will guarantee failure.

The cost of the Texas/Mexico wall is $25 billion. And that is not every year. It is one time cost.

The cost to remove 12 million illegal aliens at $2,000 each is $24 billion.

The total is $49 billion. That is a small price to get Republicans to finally shut up.

It is smaller than Trump’s increase in Pentagon spending by $74 billion to a new world record defense budget of $716 billion for fiscal 2019.

The $74 billion defense increase is EVERY STINKING YEAR while the $49 billion is one time only.

The $74 billion defense increase will not have anything you can point to and say “this is what my money bought” while the $49 billion will buy you a thousand mile long wall and 12 million new jobs for legal citizens and there will be 12 million empty apartments and houses where the illegals had once lived. There will be cheaper rent for everybody still living in the USA.

And don't forget all those new American jobs openings the illegals graciously left behind for people like 6ixStringJack.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-defense-20180212-story.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

That's a lot of waste of money on something that is just there for show, even if it is one time. It won't actually keep anybody out if there's no reason other than a stupid wall that is for show blocking them.

Take away any and all incentives for somebody to even want to be here illegally and they simply won't come, even if you had no wall and a 3,000 mile long red carpet rolled out along the border.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 7:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If 1% are legitimately needy and over 14% are participating" cite?

I'm curious what the actual numbers are.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

The report from the Food Stamp program uses the figures 1% and 14.4%.
I am not aware of a better suited authority. Who might provide more accurate data?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 7:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
ICE conducted 226,119 removals. If there are 12 million illegals divided by 226,119, it will take 53 years to remove most of the illegals. I would say Trump is not really trying very hard. I do not think he is serious. Except it is worse than 53 years to remove all the illegals because most of the 226,119 that get deported have only been in the US for a few months. Trump is not making much of a dent in the long-term illegals. It might take 100 years for Trump to deport 12 million illegals at the rate he is working. I think Trump is doing more bullshitting than deporting. The guy is Fake News.
Deportation is just as stupid and a waste of money as building a wall is.

If somebody were serious about keeping illegals out they would make it impossible for them to make any money here and send it home through tax laws and absolutely destroying any companies found hiring them under the table.

Couple that with immediately cutting illegals, even those born here by illegal parents, from any government benefits and they will go back home on their own dime, with no cost to the American taxpayer.
Always worried about the cost and never worry about results. That will guarantee failure.

The cost of the Texas/Mexico wall is $25 billion. And that is not every year. It is one time cost.

The cost to remove 12 million illegal aliens at $2,000 each is $24 billion.

The total is $49 billion. That is a small price to get Republicans to finally shut up.

It is smaller than Trump’s increase in Pentagon spending by $74 billion to a new world record defense budget of $716 billion for fiscal 2019.

The $74 billion defense increase is EVERY STINKING YEAR while the $49 billion is one time only.

The $74 billion defense increase will not have anything you can point to and say “this is what my money bought” while the $49 billion will buy you a thousand mile long wall and 12 million new jobs for legal citizens and there will be 12 million empty apartments and houses where the illegals had once lived. There will be cheaper rent for everybody still living in the USA.

And don't forget all those new American jobs openings the illegals graciously left behind for people like 6ixStringJack.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-defense-20180212-story.html
That's a lot of waste of money on something that is just there for show, even if it is one time. It won't actually keep anybody out if there's no reason other than a stupid wall that is for show blocking them.

Take away any and all incentives for somebody to even want to be here illegally and they simply won't come, even if you had no wall and a 3,000 mile long red carpet rolled out along the border.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I just realized that some posters here were not born when that showy Berlin Wall existed. Just for show.

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 7:52 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The report from the Food Stamp program uses the figures 1% and 14.4%.
I am not aware of a better suited authority. Who might provide more accurate data?

Do you have a link? I looked over a few pages for the word 'report' but didn't find anything.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 8:05 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The report from the Food Stamp program uses the figures 1% and 14.4%.
I am not aware of a better suited authority. Who might provide more accurate data?
Do you have a link? I looked over a few pages for the word 'report' but didn't find anything.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

I will look again, but with dread.
The last time you had a similar ask was with Holder's report to Congress. I had read it so many times it started putting me to sleep each time. It should have been easy to find again, but I haven't.

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 8:23 AM (P)

Sadly, that's always been true of search engines. They tend to bubble up the most relevant answers of the moment. But when the moment passes, so too do the answers. Whether you find it or not, I do appreciate the look-see.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 8:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just realized that some posters here were not born when that showy Berlin Wall existed. Just for show.

I'm assuming this was sarcasm.

I was in grade school when the Berlin Wall was torn down.

Big difference between the Berlin wall and some joke wall beteween us and Mexico there, friend.

We're not going to have a bunch of armed guards on either side shooting anybody trying to get across it. Maybe in your Conservitard wet dreams that would happen, but it NEVER would.

The wall would be strictly for show, and would be completely meaningless without mass deportations immediately following it, and hard core enforced laws making it impossible for anybody without a social security number to work or to get any benefits immediately afterward. Something else that is not going to happen.

The wall is a fucking joke.

I can only imagine somebody like drunk idiot me from 2016 thinking it was a good idea. I spent about 10 hours per week back then not drunk out of my skull or sleeping it off.

What's you're excuse now?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 12:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Sadly, that's always been true of search engines. They tend to bubble up the most relevant answers of the moment. But when the moment passes, so too do the answers. Whether you find it or not, I do appreciate the look-see.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

From what I recall, that particular item was from around 2013. But the plethora of controversial Holder appearances before Congress blots out the desired result. I can't even find a list of his appearances. I should try Congressional Quarterly.

SECOND

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 5:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just realized that some posters here were not born when that showy Berlin Wall existed. Just for show.

I'm assuming this was sarcasm.

I was in grade school when the Berlin Wall was torn down.

Big difference between the Berlin wall and some joke wall beteween us and Mexico there, friend.

We're not going to have a bunch of armed guards on either side shooting anybody trying to get across it. Maybe in your Conservitard wet dreams that would happen, but it NEVER would.

The wall would be strictly for show, and would be completely meaningless without mass deportations immediately following it, and hard core enforced laws making it impossible for anybody without a social security number to work or to get any benefits immediately afterward. Something else that is not going to happen.

The wall is a fucking joke.

I can only imagine somebody like drunk idiot me from 2016 thinking it was a good idea. I spent about 10 hours per week back then not drunk out of my skull or sleeping it off.

What's you're excuse now?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

What is the cost to prove that the wall is a joke and, take note of the "and", that deporting all 12 million illegal aliens would NOT be a benefit for the USA? It would cost $150.

Divide the total cost by the total population:
$49,000,000,000 / 327,636,000 = $149.56

It is an experiment that is well worth running to prove a point. The USA has run similar expensive experiments in the past, spending trillions of dollars on H-bombs that cannot be used. That is trillions on wars that cannot be won, if you want to be technical. The USA is no safer than countries that have spent far less. Even countries that spent nothing on H-bombs are just as safe.

I say that Trump should deport the illegals and build the wall. Then we would have tangible proof that it either does or does not make the USA better. It is the same kind of proof the USA got from building H-bombs. And at least we will be able to see the Texas/Mexico wall and see all the empty apartments where illegals had once lived and see what our $150 per citizen was spent upon. When did you last see proof that all the $trillions were spent "usefully" on H-bombs? It has been decades since the last mushroom cloud. For all we know, the actual mightiness of the USA's nuclear arsenal is smaller than that of France's arsenal, but the USA's cost is a thousand times larger. The USA's nuclear arsenal costs more every year than the one time cost for deporting all illegals plus the price for the Texas/Mexico wall.
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-arsenal/u-s-nuclear-arsenal-to-
cost-1-2-trillion-over-next-30-years-cbo-idUSKBN1D030E

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 8:11 PM (P)

When "immigrants' rights" activists get all hysterical about the wall, saying that it "won't work" and will make absolutely "no difference" to illegal immigration, two questions immediately come to mind:

1) If physical barriers make no difference at all, how about if we build bridges across the border? Just lots and lots of bridges and roads making illegal immigration easier? Would they advocate for that? If they would, then that undercuts their argument about walls.

2) If it "won't work", why get so upset about it in the first place? Why fight something so hard that's irrelevant in the first place? And if they're so patriotically concerned about "waste", why not focus on things that are a lot more wasteful, like the F-35 or our endless wars in the .... well, everywhere?

People are so illogical.

Quote:
I say that Trump should deport the illegals and build the wall. Then we would have tangible proof that it either does or does not make the USA better. It is the same kind of proof the USA got from building H-bombs. And at least we will be able to see the Texas/Mexico wall and see all the empty apartments where illegals had once lived and see what our $150 per citizen was spent upon.

I agree.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 9:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

It is an experiment that is well worth running to prove a point. The USA has run similar expensive experiments in the past, spending trillions of dollars on H-bombs that cannot be used. That is trillions on wars that cannot be won, if you want to be technical.

Our nuclear arsenal needed to be created since Russia would be the only government with one at the time if we hadn't done it. I imagine the world would be a much different place in that alternate universe, and the globes there would be unrecognizable to us here.

There's a difference between passively and actively making use of something. To say that the money spent on the arsenal was a complete waste is overlooking the potential passive power those nukes represented. This wasn't money spent on wars that could be won. It was money spent in hopes of ensuring these wars never begin in the first place.

Granted, things get a little fuzzy when you throw brainwashed ideologues with no sense of self preservation into the mix.

Quote:
The USA is no safer than countries that have spent far less. Even countries that spent nothing on H-bombs are just as safe.

This is true, kind of. Having at least two super powers with these arsenals pretty much ensures that they won't ever actually be used for fear of mutually ensured destruction.

It stands to reason that there are going to be a lot of small countries and third world shitholes that benefit from this without having had to invest in the tech.

Quote:

I say that Trump should deport the illegals and build the wall. Then we would have tangible proof that it either does or does not make the USA better. It is the same kind of proof the USA got from building H-bombs. And at least we will be able to see the Texas/Mexico wall and see all the empty apartments where illegals had once lived and see what our $150 per citizen was spent upon. When did you last see proof that all the $trillions were spent "usefully" on H-bombs? It has been decades since the last mushroom cloud. For all we know, the actual mightiness of the USA's nuclear arsenal is smaller than that of France's arsenal, but the USA's cost is a thousand times larger. The USA's nuclear arsenal costs more every year than the one time cost for deporting all illegals plus the price for the Texas/Mexico wall.

The fact that it has been decades since the last mushroom cloud, coupled with the fact that we're not all saying the Russian Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school is proof enough that the money was well spent.

What you're suggesting here is just throwing massive amounts of money away on something that won't work, and I suspect by your attitude about it that you believe it will fail as much as I do and you want a Republican President to be the one to waste all of that money that could be much better spent fixing our infrastructure or stimulating our economy in some other meaningful way.

Because of the tech available to us today, there is no reason for a physical barrier. Tweak a few existing laws and enforce the laws we already have today and the issue becomes moot.

This is strictly an ROI issue. Nobody is going to want to come here illegally if we don't give them any beneficial reasons to do so.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:01 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When "immigrants' rights" activists get all hysterical about the wall, saying that it "won't work" and will make absolutely "no difference" to illegal immigration, two questions immediately come to mind:

I don't believe that you think I'm an Immigrants Rights Activist, but I do believe that the wall will be a complete waste of money. You can't compare it to the Berlin Wall like JSF tried to do simply because we're not going to have armed soldiers on either side actively shooting anybody who comes close to it.

Quote:
1) If physical barriers make no difference at all, how about if we build bridges across the border? Just lots and lots of bridges and roads making illegal immigration easier? Would they advocate for that? If they would, then that undercuts their argument about walls.

As I said in the other posts, use the legal means we already largely have at our disposal and use against our own citizens to ensure that illegals can make no benefit by crossing the border. No government assistance, healthcare or education for anyone without a Social Security number for starters. Give advance notice of a year that it will be done, and then actively destroy any companies that are caught paying illegals under the table. Make a few examples out of them and nobody is going to dare hire any illegal help again.

With no government benefits or aid to collect, and no prospects of finding any paying work, you could build a yellow brick road connecting every major Mexican city to every major American city with a billboard saying "Welcome to America" every mile and nobody would come here.

Quote:
2) If it "won't work", why get so upset about it in the first place? Why fight something so hard that's irrelevant in the first place? And if they're so patriotically concerned about "waste", why not focus on things that are a lot more wasteful, like the F-35 or our endless wars in the .... well, everywhere?

I'm not fighting it. At this point, who really gives a shit. Government is as Government does. They're going to do whatever the hell they want to do and nobody is going to ask me what my opinion is about it first.

True... The wars are a problem. But they've been a problem for half of my life now, and there doesn't seem to be any Administration that is going to curb them. GOP started them. Democrats maintained and expanded them. The Wildcard Nationalist currently in the seat doesn't seem interested in stopping them anymore now that he's elected.

I don't think that means we need to just go and waste a bunch more money on something that isn't actually going to be beneficial to anybody, just because.

Quote:
People are so illogical.

I agree.

Quote:
I say that Trump should deport the illegals and build the wall. Then we would have tangible proof that it either does or does not make the USA better. It is the same kind of proof the USA got from building H-bombs. And at least we will be able to see the Texas/Mexico wall and see all the empty apartments where illegals had once lived and see what our $150 per citizen was spent upon.

Quote:
I agree.

I disagree.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 3:38 AM (P)

My first problem with The Wall is the idea is Trump's. If you need help *decoding* that I can't help you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
1) If physical barriers make no difference at all,

Hyperbole alert: Who said that? "no problem at all" ? Of course any physical barrier would impede travel, but could they just go around? Would the wall that can be built (budget allocated) do what it's proponents say it would do, or would the structure be only half what is required and therefore in the end a huge waste?

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
2) If it "won't work", why get so upset about it in the first place? Why fight something so hard that's irrelevant in the first place? And if they're so patriotically concerned about "waste", why not focus on things that are a lot more wasteful, like the F-35 or our endless wars in the .... well, everywhere?
People are so illogical.

Logic alert: Can't people do all of those things? Or should we only object to one thing at a time?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
My first problem with The Wall is the idea is Trump's.

LOL... no it isn't.

If you meant to say that you don't support anything that he's in favor of, then that would be accurate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 6:11 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If 1% are legitimately needy and over 14% are participating" cite?

I'm curious what the actual numbers are.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

Copied from the other thread, Unemployment Rate Facts:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 7:04 AM (P)

Where does your 1% number keep coming from? I've never seen that percentage anywhere except for when you've said it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
LOL... no it isn't.

LOL

SECOND

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:

It is an experiment that is well worth running to prove a point. The USA has run similar expensive experiments in the past, spending trillions of dollars on H-bombs that cannot be used. That is trillions on wars that cannot be won, if you want to be technical.

Our nuclear arsenal needed to be created since Russia would be the only government with one at the time if we hadn't done it. I imagine the world would be a much different place in that alternate universe, and the globes there would be unrecognizable to us here.

There's a difference between passively and actively making use of something. To say that the money spent on the arsenal was a complete waste is overlooking the potential passive power those nukes represented. This wasn't money spent on wars that could be won. It was money spent in hopes of ensuring these wars never begin in the first place.

Granted, things get a little fuzzy when you throw brainwashed ideologues with no sense of self preservation into the mix.

Quote:
The USA is no safer than countries that have spent far less. Even countries that spent nothing on H-bombs are just as safe.

This is true, kind of. Having at least two super powers with these arsenals pretty much ensures that they won't ever actually be used for fear of mutually ensured destruction.

It stands to reason that there are going to be a lot of small countries and third world shitholes that benefit from this without having had to invest in the tech.
Quote:

I say that Trump should deport the illegals and build the wall. Then we would have tangible proof that it either does or does not make the USA better. It is the same kind of proof the USA got from building H-bombs. And at least we will be able to see the Texas/Mexico wall and see all the empty apartments where illegals had once lived and see what our $150 per citizen was spent upon. When did you last see proof that all the $trillions were spent "usefully" on H-bombs? It has been decades since the last mushroom cloud. For all we know, the actual mightiness of the USA's nuclear arsenal is smaller than that of France's arsenal, but the USA's cost is a thousand times larger. The USA's nuclear arsenal costs more every year than the one time cost for deporting all illegals plus the price for the Texas/Mexico wall.

The fact that it has been decades since the last mushroom cloud, coupled with the fact that we're not all saying the Russian Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school is proof enough that the money was well spent.

What you're suggesting here is just throwing massive amounts of money away on something that won't work, and I suspect by your attitude about it that you believe it will fail as much as I do and you want a Republican President to be the one to waste all of that money that could be much better spent fixing our infrastructure or stimulating our economy in some other meaningful way.

Because of the tech available to us today, there is no reason for a physical barrier. Tweak a few existing laws and enforce the laws we already have today and the issue becomes moot.

This is strictly an ROI issue. Nobody is going to want to come here illegally if we don't give them any beneficial reasons to do so.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

When Russia and the USA got to the 100,000th megaton H-bomb, the world wasn’t any safer than it was at the 1,000th kiloton atom-bomb. But the bomb-makers were much-much richer. It is all about making the most money possible. The 99,000 extra and unusable bombs did not give the USA more prestige and didn’t intimidate Russia into not destroying the USA. It was the first few hundred bombs providing all the prestige and intimidation needed. The Republican voters, one of these days, will realize that their GOP Congressmen are conning them into paying for more H-bombs, by a factor of 100, then are needed to intimidate the Russians.

SECOND

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 6:51 PM (P)

Trump had casually blabbed about intelligence from overseas allies on two occasions last year. The most important one was when he regaled the Russian ambassador about the intel that led to an alert concerning a potential laptop bomb being smuggled onto an airline. A reader writes to tell me that as bad as this episode was, it was actually far worse:

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/has-israel-stopped-sharing-inte
l-with-the-trump-administration/

The US obtained this intelligence from Israel. What is now known to the general public is that Israel had succeeded in placing a listening device in an ISIS safe house deep in Syria, at great risk, and was listening in on everything ISIS was planning from that location. Trump revealed this intelligence to Kislyak and Lavarov during that infamous Oval Office meeting in which he also bragged about firing James Comey the day before. His revelation essentially blew the intelligence operation; the listening device the Israelis had placed went dead shortly after.

A few weeks ago I heard Ronen Bergman speak to a group of about 50 people, mostly Israelis. He is Israel’s leading national security journalist, and recently published an incredible book called Rise and Kill First, a history of the Israeli security services. He wouldn’t get into details about what Trump told the Russians during that Oval Office meeting, but he said it was “much worse” than what is “publicly” known, and that Trump essentially revealed the “crown jewels” of Israeli intelligence operational methods in Syria. He said the Israeli intelligence community is absolutely livid; has come to the conclusion that the administration is “chaotic” and absolutely cannot be trusted with any sensitive information; and will not reveal to the Americans any information unless it doesn’t care whether such information is publicly known. He said this is an absolute sea change from all past administrations both Republican and Democratic. Before this, Israel has always shared without hesitation intelligence information with the US that it doesn’t share with any other country.

When my right-wing Republican Jewish Coalition friends tell me how great Trump is for Israel, it absolutely makes my blood boil, because it’s so demonstrably untrue.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, May 3, 2018 1:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump had casually blabbed about intelligence from overseas allies on two occasions last year. The most important one was when he regaled the Russian ambassador about the intel that led to an alert concerning a potential laptop bomb being smuggled onto an airline. A reader writes to tell me that as bad as this episode was, it was actually far worse:

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/has-israel-stopped-sharing-inte
l-with-the-trump-administration/

The US obtained this intelligence from Israel. What is now known to the general public is that Israel had succeeded in placing a listening device in an ISIS safe house deep in Syria, at great risk, and was listening in on everything ISIS was planning from that location. Trump revealed this intelligence to Kislyak and Lavarov during that infamous Oval Office meeting in which he also bragged about firing James Comey the day before. His revelation essentially blew the intelligence operation; the listening device the Israelis had placed went dead shortly after.

A few weeks ago I heard Ronen Bergman speak to a group of about 50 people, mostly Israelis. He is Israel’s leading national security journalist, and recently published an incredible book called Rise and Kill First, a history of the Israeli security services. He wouldn’t get into details about what Trump told the Russians during that Oval Office meeting, but he said it was “much worse” than what is “publicly” known, and that Trump essentially revealed the “crown jewels” of Israeli intelligence operational methods in Syria. He said the Israeli intelligence community is absolutely livid; has come to the conclusion that the administration is “chaotic” and absolutely cannot be trusted with any sensitive information; and will not reveal to the Americans any information unless it doesn’t care whether such information is publicly known. He said this is an absolute sea change from all past administrations both Republican and Democratic. Before this, Israel has always shared without hesitation intelligence information with the US that it doesn’t share with any other country.

When my right-wing Republican Jewish Coalition friends tell me how great Trump is for Israel, it absolutely makes my blood boil, because it’s so demonstrably untrue.

Are you still ill? Get well soon.
You posting facts and reason is a bit unsettling.

Of course it was widespread concern that Trump had no muzzle and no clue about National Security. But at least he didn't pull a Hilliary and commit Treason by revealing National Security Secrets on Prime Time nationwide broadcast TV during their Debate.
To be very clear, I am glad Israel is no longer sharing Intelligence with us, at least until we get a decent White House resident. I hope they get all they can from us on the fronts of political, economic, military, etc.

SECOND

Thursday, May 3, 2018 6:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are you still ill? Get well soon.
You posting facts and reason is a bit unsettling.

Of course it was widespread concern that Trump had no muzzle and no clue about National Security. But at least he didn't pull a Hilliary and commit Treason by revealing National Security Secrets on Prime Time nationwide broadcast TV during their Debate.
To be very clear, I am glad Israel is no longer sharing Intelligence with us, at least until we get a decent White House resident. I hope they get all they can from us on the fronts of political, economic, military, etc.

JewelStaiteFan, since when did you decide Trump is indecent?

What did Trump do to change your mind?

I can't find any Texas Republican voters that share your low opinion of Trump.

As a very specific example, I can't find any Trump voters who have a problem about him doing this: "Then again, no previous president would have led foreign countries to believe that their receipt of security assistance was dependent on them seeking to actively obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation." It is perfectly okay for the Trump voters I am familiar with.
www.vox.com/2018/5/2/17311190/ukraine-mueller-trump-manafort-javelin

I am impressed that Trump has 41% of the country approving of him, although I am not impressed that he has switched many people from neutral toward him to disapprove.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

JewelStaiteFan, could you expand upon your comment "Hilliary commits Treason by revealing National Security Secrets on Prime Time nationwide broadcast TV during their Debate"? Because all I can find is that is false. It is an untruth. A fake report: www.snopes.com/fact-check/homeland-security-indicts-hillary/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Thursday, May 3, 2018 7:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:

It is an experiment that is well worth running to prove a point. The USA has run similar expensive experiments in the past, spending trillions of dollars on H-bombs that cannot be used. That is trillions on wars that cannot be won, if you want to be technical.

Our nuclear arsenal needed to be created since Russia would be the only government with one at the time if we hadn't done it. I imagine the world would be a much different place in that alternate universe, and the globes there would be unrecognizable to us here.

There's a difference between passively and actively making use of something. To say that the money spent on the arsenal was a complete waste is overlooking the potential passive power those nukes represented. This wasn't money spent on wars that could be won. It was money spent in hopes of ensuring these wars never begin in the first place.

Granted, things get a little fuzzy when you throw brainwashed ideologues with no sense of self preservation into the mix.

Quote:
The USA is no safer than countries that have spent far less. Even countries that spent nothing on H-bombs are just as safe.

This is true, kind of. Having at least two super powers with these arsenals pretty much ensures that they won't ever actually be used for fear of mutually ensured destruction.

It stands to reason that there are going to be a lot of small countries and third world shitholes that benefit from this without having had to invest in the tech. . . .

6ixStringJack, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that the USA did not need to build 50,000 nukes costing $trillions (I am ignoring that the $trillions are in some wealthy person's portfolio; he doesn't see it as wasted). The USA could have stopped after building only hundreds. Even the USA acknowledged that most of that money was wasted, since it has dismantled the majority of everything it built. It was as if the USA purchased 50,000 new luxury cars (rather than H-bombs), drove two of them on a trip to Japan, dumped a hundred more cars into the lagoon on Bikini Atoll in the Pacific, and then sent most of the luxury cars to the crushing machine for the scrap metal.

The Chinese stopped building H-bombs and A-bombs after building only hundreds. More would have been a waste of money because the bombs will be exploding on the same planet that China is located. The Chinese know that fallout from their own bombs and nuclear winter will cross the border into China. It really made no sense in China to bomb all of the thousands of Trump golf courses and then breath the radioactive dust in Beijing. Instead, bomb Trump Tower and the White House and Mar-a-Lago and the job is done.
www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
6ixStringJack, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that the USA did not need to build 50,000 nukes costing $trillions (I am ignoring that the $trillions are in some wealthy person's portfolio; he doesn't see it as wasted). The USA could have stopped after building only hundreds.

Sure. I'll acknowledge this. I've never been a warhawk, I don't trust our government at all, and I'm always bashing them for inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. This fits all three.

That's not your original argument though. You're moving the goalposts again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Friday, May 4, 2018 12:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Sure. I'll acknowledge this. I've never been a warhawk, I don't trust our government at all, and I'm always bashing them for inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. This fits all three.

That's not your original argument though. You're moving the goalposts again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Where the fuck did you get the idea you can believable claim to be no warhawk and still voted for Trump? He was saying he would nuke ISIS while he was running for President. I, on the other hand, am a real warhawk, but I'd never vote for a fucking idiot who would kill the wrong people out of stupidity: Middle East civilian deaths have soared under Trump. And the media mostly shrug.

The numbers are shocking — or at least they should be.

2017 was the deadliest year for civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, with as many as 6,000 people killed in strikes conducted by the U.S.-led coalition, according to the watchdog group Airwars.

That is an increase of more than 200 percent over the previous year.

It is far more if you add in countries like Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and many others.

But the subject, considered a stain on President Barack Obama’s legacy even by many of his supporters, has almost dropped off the map.

Obsessed with the seemingly daily updates in the Stormy Daniels story or the impeachment potential of the Russia investigation, the American media is paying even less attention now to a topic it never focused on with much zeal.

“The media has unfortunately been so distracted by the chaos of the Trump administration and allegations of the president’s collusion with Russia that it’s neglected to look closely at the things he’s actually doing already,” said Daphne Eviatar, a director of Amnesty International USA.

That includes, she said, “hugely expanding the use of drone and airstrikes, including outside of war zones, and increasing civilian casualties in the process.”

Trump, of course, was a candidate who promised to “bomb the shit out of ’em [Islamic State],” and has since declared victory over the terrorist organization, while continuing to drop bombs.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 4, 2018 1:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Where the fuck did you get the idea you can believable claim to be no warhawk and still voted for Trump?

LOL. Hillary was actively trying to ram her 16" black strap-on cock up Putin's ass on live TV.

I didn't have any problems with the Russians at that time, and I still don't.

Muslims, however, have been a problem and continue to be one.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Friday, May 4, 2018 5:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Where the fuck did you get the idea you can believable claim to be no warhawk and still voted for Trump?

LOL. Hillary was actively trying to ram her 16" black strap-on cock up Putin's ass on live TV.

I didn't have any problems with the Russians at that time, and I still don't.

Muslims, however, have been a problem and continue to be one.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

There are many Americans, like 6ix, who express themselves in the same way about Hillary and Muslims. Trump is one. Trump is hopeless, but it has never been worth my effort to convince Trump voters, and 6ix was one, that they live in an alternate reality. In my opinion anybody is nuts who believed Trump. That holds true even if they eventually turn against him because he beat the truth about himself into their head with too many repetitions of "No Collusion" and "Believe Me". There is a nice little article about the deranged everyday-in-every-way thinking of the majority: How America Lost Its Mind.
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind
/534231/

How widespread is this promiscuous devotion to the untrue? How many Americans now inhabit alternate realities? Any given survey of beliefs is only a sketch of what people in general really think. But reams of survey research from the past 20 years reveal a rough, useful census of American credulity and delusion. By my reckoning, the solidly reality-based are a minority, maybe a third of us but almost certainly fewer than half. Only a third of us, for instance, don’t believe that the tale of creation in Genesis is the word of God. Only a third strongly disbelieve in telepathy and ghosts. Two-thirds of Americans believe that “angels and demons are active in the world.” More than half say they’re absolutely certain heaven exists, and just as many are sure of the existence of a personal God—not a vague force or universal spirit or higher power, but some guy. A third of us believe not only that global warming is no big deal but that it’s a hoax perpetrated by scientists, the government, and journalists. A third believe that our earliest ancestors were humans just like us; that the government has, in league with the pharmaceutical industry, hidden evidence of natural cancer cures; that extraterrestrials have visited or are visiting Earth. Almost a quarter believe that vaccines cause autism, and that Donald Trump won the popular vote in 2016. A quarter believe that our previous president maybe or definitely was (or is?) the anti-Christ. According to a survey by Public Policy Polling, 15 percent believe that the “media or the government adds secret mind-controlling technology to television broadcast signals,” and another 15 percent think that’s possible. A quarter of Americans believe in witches. Remarkably, the same fraction, or maybe less, believes that the Bible consists mainly of legends and fables—the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Friday, May 4, 2018 5:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

How widespread is this promiscuous devotion to the untrue? How many Americans now inhabit alternate realities? Any given survey of beliefs is only a sketch of what people in general really think. But reams of survey research from the past 20 years reveal a rough, useful census of American credulity and delusion. By my reckoning, the solidly reality-based are a minority, maybe a third of us but almost certainly fewer than half. Only a third of us, for instance, don’t believe that the tale of creation in Genesis is the word of God. Only a third strongly disbelieve in telepathy and ghosts. Two-thirds of Americans believe that “angels and demons are active in the world.” More than half say they’re absolutely certain heaven exists, and just as many are sure of the existence of a personal God—not a vague force or universal spirit or higher power, but some guy. A third of us believe not only that global warming is no big deal but that it’s a hoax perpetrated by scientists, the government, and journalists. A third believe that our earliest ancestors were humans just like us; that the government has, in league with the pharmaceutical industry, hidden evidence of natural cancer cures; that extraterrestrials have visited or are visiting Earth. Almost a quarter believe that vaccines cause autism, and that Donald Trump won the popular vote in 2016. A quarter believe that our previous president maybe or definitely was (or is?) the anti-Christ. According to a survey by Public Policy Polling, 15 percent believe that the “media or the government adds secret mind-controlling technology to television broadcast signals,” and another 15 percent think that’s possible. A quarter of Americans believe in witches. Remarkably, the same fraction, or maybe less, believes that the Bible consists mainly of legends and fables—the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Which is why I say we get the government we deserve, and that one of the most telling truths about The Trump presidency, is that the majority of people in this country are pinheads.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, May 5, 2018 12:32 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Where the fuck did you get the idea you can believable claim to be no warhawk and still voted for Trump?

LOL. Hillary was actively trying to ram her 16" black strap-on cock up Putin's ass on live TV.

I didn't have any problems with the Russians at that time, and I still don't.

Muslims, however, have been a problem and continue to be one.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
There are many Americans, like 6ix, who express themselves in the same way about Hillary and Muslims. Trump is one. Trump is hopeless, but it has never been worth my effort to convince Trump voters, and 6ix was one, that they live in an alternate reality. In my opinion anybody is nuts who believed Trump. That holds true even if they eventually turn against him because he beat the truth about himself into their head with too many repetitions of "No Collusion" and "Believe Me". There is a nice little article about the deranged everyday-in-every-way thinking of the majority: How America Lost Its Mind.
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind
/534231/

How widespread is this promiscuous devotion to the untrue? How many Americans now inhabit alternate realities? Any given survey of beliefs is only a sketch of what people in general really think. But reams of survey research from the past 20 years reveal a rough, useful census of American credulity and delusion. By my reckoning, the solidly reality-based are a minority, maybe a third of us but almost certainly fewer than half. Only a third of us, for instance, don’t believe that the tale of creation in Genesis is the word of God. Only a third strongly disbelieve in telepathy and ghosts. Two-thirds of Americans believe that “angels and demons are active in the world.” More than half say they’re absolutely certain heaven exists, and just as many are sure of the existence of a personal God—not a vague force or universal spirit or higher power, but some guy. A third of us believe not only that global warming is no big deal but that it’s a hoax perpetrated by scientists, the government, and journalists. A third believe that our earliest ancestors were humans just like us; that the government has, in league with the pharmaceutical industry, hidden evidence of natural cancer cures; that extraterrestrials have visited or are visiting Earth. Almost a quarter believe that vaccines cause autism, and that Donald Trump won the popular vote in 2016. A quarter believe that our previous president maybe or definitely was (or is?) the anti-Christ. According to a survey by Public Policy Polling, 15 percent believe that the “media or the government adds secret mind-controlling technology to television broadcast signals,” and another 15 percent think that’s possible. A quarter of Americans believe in witches. Remarkably, the same fraction, or maybe less, believes that the Bible consists mainly of legends and fables—the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

And you live in the alternate reality where you can immediately judge whether a person is Good or Evil simply by if they are Democrat or Republican.

Simple lives for simple minds.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
There are many Americans, like 6ix, who express themselves in the same way about Hillary and Muslims. Trump is one. Trump is hopeless, but it has never been worth my effort to convince Trump voters, and 6ix was one, that they live in an alternate reality. In my opinion anybody is nuts who believed Trump. That holds true even if they eventually turn against him because he beat the truth about himself into their head with too many repetitions of "No Collusion" and "Believe Me". There is a nice little article about the deranged everyday-in-every-way thinking of the majority: How America Lost Its Mind.
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind
/534231/

How widespread is this promiscuous devotion to the untrue? How many Americans now inhabit alternate realities? Any given survey of beliefs is only a sketch of what people in general really think. But reams of survey research from the past 20 years reveal a rough, useful census of American credulity and delusion. By my reckoning, the solidly reality-based are a minority, maybe a third of us but almost certainly fewer than half. Only a third of us, for instance, don’t believe that the tale of creation in Genesis is the word of God. Only a third strongly disbelieve in telepathy and ghosts. Two-thirds of Americans believe that “angels and demons are active in the world.” More than half say they’re absolutely certain heaven exists, and just as many are sure of the existence of a personal God—not a vague force or universal spirit or higher power, but some guy. A third of us believe not only that global warming is no big deal but that it’s a hoax perpetrated by scientists, the government, and journalists. A third believe that our earliest ancestors were humans just like us; that the government has, in league with the pharmaceutical industry, hidden evidence of natural cancer cures; that extraterrestrials have visited or are visiting Earth. Almost a quarter believe that vaccines cause autism, and that Donald Trump won the popular vote in 2016. A quarter believe that our previous president maybe or definitely was (or is?) the anti-Christ. According to a survey by Public Policy Polling, 15 percent believe that the “media or the government adds secret mind-controlling technology to television broadcast signals,” and another 15 percent think that’s possible. A quarter of Americans believe in witches. Remarkably, the same fraction, or maybe less, believes that the Bible consists mainly of legends and fables—the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

This puts me solidly in the category of the reality-based.

And yet, I voted against Hillary.

And watching the Deep State go to work against the result of the democratic vote, I was right. Anyone who is with them, as Hilliary was, is not for us.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, May 5, 2018 3:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are you still ill? Get well soon.
You posting facts and reason is a bit unsettling.

Of course it was widespread concern that Trump had no muzzle and no clue about National Security. But at least he didn't pull a Hilliary and commit Treason by revealing National Security Secrets on Prime Time nationwide broadcast TV during their Debate.
To be very clear, I am glad Israel is no longer sharing Intelligence with us, at least until we get a decent White House resident. I hope they get all they can from us on the fronts of political, economic, military, etc.
JewelStaiteFan, since when did you decide Trump is indecent?

What did Trump do to change your mind?

I can't find any Texas Republican voters that share your low opinion of Trump.

JewelStaiteFan, could you expand upon your comment "Hilliary commits Treason by revealing National Security Secrets on Prime Time nationwide broadcast TV during their Debate"? Because all I can find is that is false. It is an untruth. A fake report: www.snopes.com/fact-check/homeland-security-indicts-hillary/

I decided Trump was substandard sometime before the 2016 Primary in my state.
I have not changed my mind about Trump.
If looking for Trump doubters, check with Conservatives.
Hilliary's Treason? You must be joking. Anybody who imagines you are serious can easily answer.

SECOND

Saturday, May 5, 2018 6:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

This puts me solidly in the category of the reality-based.

And yet, I voted against Hillary.

And watching the Deep State go to work against the result of the democratic vote, I was right. Anyone who is with them, as Hilliary was, is not for us.

Voting against Hillary is perfectly rational for either a Russian troll or a Ralph Nader, who is both anti-GOP & anti-Dem. Hillary is an annoyance for Putin, while Trump is his "friend". But I see that Trump is reactivating the 2nd Fleet to face Russian threat. It's another waste of Defense Dept money so that Trump can give the illusion that he is not really being blackmailed by Putin.
https://news.usni.org/2018/05/04/navy-reestablishes-2nd-fleet-plan-cal
ls-for-250-person-command-in-norfolk

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Saturday, May 5, 2018 6:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

And you live in the alternate reality where you can immediately judge whether a person is Good or Evil simply by if they are Democrat or Republican.

Simple lives for simple minds.

I have to admit that not all Republicans are prima facie crazy. The rich Republicans certainly know what they are doing. The poor who voted for Trump? Not so much.

But what is going on with you? Does the delicate little snowflake 6ixStringJack melt when his core beliefs are rejected with contempt? Too bad for the unworkable delusions haunting your brain. Here is another delusion being backed by Republicans:

The rationale behind super-majority laws
https://qz.com/1245033

Supermajority bills were heralded as ways to ultimately improve economic growth, and force lawmakers to spend money more wisely. The idea is often buttressed by some variation of the “trickle down” theory of economics—cutting taxes encourages businesses to invest and hire more, and people with disposable income to spend more.

The economic reality

Making it harder to raise taxes hasn’t necessarily resulted in the economic growth or wiser spending that it was supposed to, however. While states that passed supermajority tax laws spent about 2% less on general state funding, that was offset by local spending (ie. from villages, cities, and counties), an Urban Institute report found (pdf, pg. 64).

There’s a broader lesson about “trickle down” economics that the US seems to be learning again and again, since the phrase was first coined to mock president Herbert Hoover’s depression-era tax plan. “We’ve got a good base of evidence from tax cutting in the states that shows tax cuts are not a recipe for economic growth,” said Johnson. “They just lead to reductions in services that people need.”

The Result:

On May 3, teachers in Arizona ended a six-day walkout after the state government agreed to a 20% salary raise over the next three years. While it sounds like a lot, it’s much less than what teachers were originally asking: Overall, Arizona’s school funding is still below the levels of the 2008 recession, later raises are not guaranteed, and they’re being financed by cash set aside to clean up pollution.

Striking teachers believe they may be the forefront of a new grassroots movement in the US, one that makes voters reconsider taxing companies and the wealthy.

Some teachers who were on strike have adopted a new chant as they come off: “Vote them out.” They intend to go to the polls in huge numbers in the mid-term election, and vote against candidate running on platforms of tax cuts and caps.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Saturday, May 5, 2018 11:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I'm an anti-democracy Deep State troll.

Plus I live in a fantasy-world where my side is always good, and everyone who disagrees with me must be a foreign agent. And aside from that, I have OCD. Let's not forget the OCD.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic? Certainly not SECOND RATE, who is so bankrupt of ideas and ethics, his only way of dealing with information he can't grasp is to hide behind the "Russian troll" meme.

1KIKI

Sunday, May 6, 2018 12:39 AM (P)

To get back to the thread topic - A thread for Democrats Only

Aside from Hillary (who's biggest goal was to get through the campaign chore on her way to the coronation, because who needs to actually appeal to voters in a democracy), Pelosi is another symbol of what's wrong with the party. I read, literally years ago, that dems had decided their strategy would be to ride the 'demographic' wave. Identity politics is one tactic to do that.

But the demographic wave isn't a given. You have to have something to offer even the 'demographic' voter, besides an aggrieved sense of victimhood (while you triangulate away their livelihoods to international corporations). Sooner or later, that message will wear out, and people will look around and realize "I'm NOT better off than I was 8 years ago". When they realize that - despite glib words of solidarity - DEMS ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE, they will not be on the dems side, either.

Nancy Pelosi is a huge doubled-edged sword for Democrats
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats/index.h
tml
Nancy Pelosi says she will run for speaker if Democrats win the House
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Democrats will win the House
Nancy Pelosi won't bet her job on a Democratic win
On Nancy Pelosi, most Dems in Pa., NJ keep their distance
Nancy Pelosi's mistake on identity politics
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/opinions/identity-politics-pelosi-opini
on-sheffield/index.html

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, May 6, 2018 1:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Nancy Pelosi ~~says~~ threatens she will run for speaker if Democrats win the House

Fixed that for ya.

Almost as good as when Alec promised he would leave America if only we would elect Bush43.

Sunday, May 6, 2018 2:25 AM (P)

Sunday, May 6, 2018 2:27 AM (P)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, May 6, 2018 3:20 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

And you live in the alternate reality where you can immediately judge whether a person is Good or Evil simply by if they are Democrat or Republican.

Simple lives for simple minds.
I have to admit that not all Republicans are prima facie crazy. The rich Republicans certainly know what they are doing. The poor who voted for Trump? Not so much.

But what is going on with you? Does the delicate little snowflake 6ixStringJack melt when his core beliefs are rejected with contempt? Too bad for the unworkable delusions haunting your brain. Here is another delusion being backed by Republicans:

The rationale behind super-majority laws
https://qz.com/1245033

Supermajority bills were heralded as ways to ultimately improve economic growth, and force lawmakers to spend money more wisely. The idea is often buttressed by some variation of the “trickle down” theory of economics—cutting taxes encourages businesses to invest and hire more, and people with disposable income to spend more.

The economic reality

Making it harder to raise taxes hasn’t necessarily resulted in the economic growth or wiser spending that it was supposed to, however. While states that passed supermajority tax laws spent about 2% less on general state funding, that was offset by local spending (ie. from villages, cities, and counties), an Urban Institute report found (pdf, pg. 64).

There’s a broader lesson about “trickle down” economics that the US seems to be learning again and again, since the phrase was first coined to mock president Herbert Hoover’s depression-era tax plan. “We’ve got a good base of evidence from tax cutting in the states that shows tax cuts are not a recipe for economic growth,” said Johnson. “They just lead to reductions in services that people need.”

The Result:

On May 3, teachers in Arizona ended a six-day walkout after the state government agreed to a 20% salary raise over the next three years. While it sounds like a lot, it’s much less than what teachers were originally asking: Overall, Arizona’s school funding is still below the levels of the 2008 recession, later raises are not guaranteed, and they’re being financed by cash set aside to clean up pollution.

Striking teachers believe they may be the forefront of a new grassroots movement in the US, one that makes voters reconsider taxing companies and the wealthy.

Some teachers who were on strike have adopted a new chant as they come off: “Vote them out.” They intend to go to the polls in huge numbers in the mid-term election, and vote against candidate running on platforms of tax cuts and caps.

Funny.
Teachers are so stupid they can't even find the polls, even when it is in their school the whole day.
Teachers are so stupid that they boast they are incapable of learning to fire a weapon like 10 year olds do every day.

1KIKI

Sunday, May 6, 2018 4:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
God Bless America Lyrics

The video start arrow covered up a letter. When I scrolled past it, I read Godless America. No kidding. "My side" over all. All day. Every day.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 6, 2018 6:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

And you live in the alternate reality where you can immediately judge whether a person is Good or Evil simply by if they are Democrat or Republican.

Simple lives for simple minds.
I have to admit that not all Republicans are prima facie crazy. The rich Republicans certainly know what they are doing. The poor who voted for Trump? Not so much.

But what is going on with you? Does the delicate little snowflake 6ixStringJack melt when his core beliefs are rejected with contempt? Too bad for the unworkable delusions haunting your brain. Here is another delusion being backed by Republicans:

The rationale behind super-majority laws
https://qz.com/1245033

Supermajority bills were heralded as ways to ultimately improve economic growth, and force lawmakers to spend money more wisely. The idea is often buttressed by some variation of the “trickle down” theory of economics—cutting taxes encourages businesses to invest and hire more, and people with disposable income to spend more.

The economic reality

Making it harder to raise taxes hasn’t necessarily resulted in the economic growth or wiser spending that it was supposed to, however. While states that passed supermajority tax laws spent about 2% less on general state funding, that was offset by local spending (ie. from villages, cities, and counties), an Urban Institute report found (pdf, pg. 64).

There’s a broader lesson about “trickle down” economics that the US seems to be learning again and again, since the phrase was first coined to mock president Herbert Hoover’s depression-era tax plan. “We’ve got a good base of evidence from tax cutting in the states that shows tax cuts are not a recipe for economic growth,” said Johnson. “They just lead to reductions in services that people need.”

The Result:

On May 3, teachers in Arizona ended a six-day walkout after the state government agreed to a 20% salary raise over the next three years. While it sounds like a lot, it’s much less than what teachers were originally asking: Overall, Arizona’s school funding is still below the levels of the 2008 recession, later raises are not guaranteed, and they’re being financed by cash set aside to clean up pollution.

Striking teachers believe they may be the forefront of a new grassroots movement in the US, one that makes voters reconsider taxing companies and the wealthy.

Some teachers who were on strike have adopted a new chant as they come off: “Vote them out.” They intend to go to the polls in huge numbers in the mid-term election, and vote against candidate running on platforms of tax cuts and caps.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Hey Sigs....

This is getting too funny.

I've been mislabled as a snowflake by the right and left fringes now, twice in one week.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Sunday, May 6, 2018 5:07 PM (P)

Review of Bryan Caplan’s The Case Against Education
April 26th, 2018

www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3678

Scott Aaronson points out the areas in education that truthfully do need improvement in his review. Then he notes how a reform program can go wrong when done by famous name Republicans:

I have a more prosaic worry about Caplan’s program. If the world he advocates were actually brought into being, I suspect the people responsible wouldn’t be nerdy economics professors like himself, who have principled objections to “forced enlightenment” and to signalling charades, yet still maintain warm fuzzies for the ideals of learning. Rather, the “reformers” would be more on the model of, say, Steve Bannon or Scott Pruitt or Alex Jones: people who’d gleefully take a torch to the universities, fortresses of the despised intellectual elite, not in the conviction that this wouldn’t plunge humanity back into the Dark Ages, but in the hope that it would.

When the US Congress was debating whether to cancel the Superconducting Supercollider, a few condensed-matter physicists famously testified against the project. They thought that $10-$20 billion for a single experiment was excessive, and that they could provide way more societal value with that kind of money were it reallocated to them. We all know what happened: the SSC was cancelled, and of the money that was freed up, 0%—absolutely none of it—went to any of the other research favored by the SSC’s opponents.

If Caplan were to get his way, I fear that the story would be similar. Caplan talks about all the other priorities—from feeding the world’s poor to curing diseases to fixing crumbling infrastructure—that could be funded using the trillions currently wasted on runaway credential signaling. But in any future I can plausibly imagine where the government actually axes education, the savings go to things like enriching the leaders’ cronies and launching vanity wars.

My preferences for American politics have two tiers. In the first tier, I simply want the Democrats to vanquish the Republicans, in every office from president down to dogcatcher, in order to prevent further spiraling into nihilistic quasi-fascism, and to restore the baseline non-horribleness that we know is possible for rich liberal democracies. Then, in the second tier, I want the libertarians and rationalists and nerdy economists and Slate Star Codex readers to be able to experiment—that’s a key word here—with whether they can use futarchy** and prediction markets and pricing-in-lieu-of-regulation and other nifty ideas to improve dramatically over the baseline liberal order. I don’t expect that I’ll ever get what I want; I’ll be extremely lucky even to get the first half of it. But I find that my desires regarding Caplan’s program fit into the same mold. First and foremost, save education from those who’d destroy it because they hate the life of the mind. Then and only then, let people experiment with taking a surgical scalpel to education, removing from it the tumor of forced enlightenment, because they love the life of the mind.

**Futarchy is a form of government proposed by economist Robin Hanson, in which elected officials define measures of national welfare, and prediction markets are used to determine which policies will have the most positive effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy

Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs

Quote:
Democracy seems better than autocracy (i.e., kings and dictators), but it still has problems. There are today vast differences in wealth among nations, and we can not attribute most of these differences to either natural resources or human abilities. Instead, much of the difference seems to be that the poor nations (many of which are democracies) are those that more often adopted dumb policies, policies which hurt most everyone in the nation. And even rich nations frequently adopt such policies.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.c

SECOND

Sunday, May 6, 2018 5:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Hey Sigs....

This is getting too funny.

I've been mislabled as a snowflake by the right and left fringes now, twice in one week.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6ix, you've told stories about yourself melting down under adversity. I'd believe you are not a frail snowflake if you hadn't told them. You need to build a false internet facade for yourself, making you look braver, tougher, smarter, less beaten down by life than you really are. You can start building the strength illusion by ignoring accusations of being a snowflake. For example, every time Trump says "No Collusion!" I know he knows he colluded. When he says "Believe Me" I know he knows he told a lie.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly