Partly, yes. But only in the service of answering your question. That's a silly question. Of course that can happen. But that doesn't mean that it always happens or that it's somehow awful to suggest that the converse is also often true. See slavery, for example. Or see health care, for example. I don't care, for instance, if everyone agrees with me about how to cover the millions of uninsured. I don't care if people agree about how to see that pre-existing conditions are covered. I don't care if people agree about how to make decent and affordable insurance to all Americans. I only care that everyone agrees to do everything they can to solve the problem. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress have not tried and do not want to solve those problems. In fact, they take it as a major cause to stop those reforms from happening. You're ******* right I think that's evil.
No, you pompous dumbass. (did I use "pompous" correctly this time? It's part of my charm...) You like the theory of everyone getting something for nothing, regardless of what they contribute. I don't, and will not, ever get that kind of reasoning. The fact that you choose to throw personal insults in knowing you've got about a ten to one backing over here even makes your anger all the more loathesome. You're a very angry, bitter man. People sometimes don't get that most of my stuff is, and should, be taken lightly. Honestly, I don't really care about much, except people in my life. You? I'm not sure, man. I like you in person, but the manifestation that has been growing here? You're just becoming more and more hateful. Ironic considering what you believe you're fighting for. Go ahead though, bro. Throw another personal insult at me. I can take it. Can you?
Can you elaborate on this please? How have the Bushes spent capital to help rich people? I thought Joe Kennedy made his money running whiskey during Prohibition... imagine all the families that helped?!!! I kind of understand your perception here but I'm wondering if it just isn't a Boston, Irish-Catholic kind of cultural thing rather than something unique to Kennedys and Kennedys alone.
In very basic terms I meant expending political capital primarily on tax cuts for the rich while squashing programs that help the poor. And I wasn't suggesting that good works were specific to the Kennedy's, though they certainly did more than just about anyone else I can think of. I expect you're right that the Boston Irish-Catholic thing has a lot to do with it.
Awesome response. Exactly what I should expect. Let me know when you can rationalize anything. Until then, I'll react to you the same as you react to me.
Okay. As long as you know you're in this fight by yourself. I'm not angry or bitter toward you (as you suggested) and I'm not going out of my way to put you down. And I'm certainly not "fighting for" anything, as you said in your previous post. I'm just killing time on a message board. My real vitriol is reserved for the people who have actual political power and misuse it. My BBS vitriol is reserved for trolls and you're not one of them. I'm sorry I've upset you. You're just so ****ing fun to mess with.
two things, we do know that prescott bush profited from the Nazi War Machine, so much so that his assets were seized at one point in 1942. link the prohibition rumors are just rumors, and if they weren't how did that hurt families. prohibition was considered a failure, its not like the guy is rumored to have been al capone
Is family leave from a job getting something from nothing? Is a minimum wage hike getting something for nothing? Why don't you look at his bills and those he worked for? You may not get the idea of getting something regardless of what they contribute hard to fathom, but I don't get people who believe that working parents don't contribute.
I presume you are joking. Specter didn't seem like he wanted to talk much adn was probably thinking about his friend and colleague who had just passed away.
Have you considered that this attitude is the same as the attitude as those on the right that say "you are either with us or against us.."?
Hum…lets see…. "With us or against us" for enacting universal healthcare or "With us or against us" for paranoia and starting preemptive, illegal wars Yeah, that's exactly the same attitude.
The issues are different but the attitude is the same. The opponents would frame the issue as "defending the country" or "supporting a massive government takeover of medicine."
You got me. I'm a closet Jazz fan. A Kennedy-hating, capitalist ahole who hates poor people (of which I am one).
at time of the auto accident, Teddy Kennedy was 30-something US Senator from MA, w a wife and children, not exactly a youth. that one incident colored my opinion of him insofar being a person genuinely committed to doing what's best for his fellow man. confesson of a biased person. do you understand why so conservatives align themselves to the Republican party, one fouthat was nded by Lincoln, arguably, the the most liberal politician in US history.
When you take the attitude that those who disagree with you politically are evil or bad people, you have taken the first step toward halting any and all productive discourse. When you halt productive discourse, and start making character indictments based on political disagreement, the effect is two-fold: 1. Absolutely nothing positive will be accomplished, and 2. An attempt to squelch disagreement based on labeling as evil serves to deter the discourse upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights was founded upon.
I don't "take" any attitude. I have a moral compass that I did not choose. My beliefs were not chosen; they evolved naturally through my life experience. And the only thing I was saying is that I believe it is evil to give money to rich people while poor people starve and suffer. It that really so controversial? I support a single payer health care system because I believe it is a moral imperative that one man should not have better health because he has more money than another. Is that radical? It shouldn't be. The idea behind feeding the rich and allowing the poor to starve is one of supply side economics, an idea which has been proven a fallacy over and over and over and over again. The money does not trickle down. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a fact. And, yes, to the extent that I believe in "evil," I can't imagine anything that better fits the definition. That's not a knock on you or langal or anyone who doesn't hold the power to change it. It's a knock on the powerful who make an active choice every day to continue to seize every resource they can for themselves and people like them and leave the rest to suffer. I am sorry if my moral compass hurts your feelings. I have no intention of changing it.
It is pretty clear that you don't get my point, or have simply chosen to ignore it. When you make people defensive by insinuating that they are evil or immoral will make getting nothing done an absolute certainty. You have not hurt my feelings. I see your point and do not quibble with it. Ted Kennedy had a much better way of dealing with those of differing viewpoints. He worked with them in order to obtain positive change. Had he referred to them as evil or immoral or bad, nothing would have gotten done. We would be much better off if there were more Ted Kennedys on the left side of the aisle.
