Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- ********0
Freshmen Democrats run away from Obama
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspag…
“You have to be an independent, no matter what,” Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper said. The Pennsylvania Democrat pointed to her vote against the climate change bill, which she said is an economic loser for southwest Pennsylvania, and her fight for abortion funding restrictions in the health care bill as evidence of her independence.- thanks for directly speaking on my behalf Dahlkemper.********
- Wait, what makes here a Democrat?WrappedInBooks
- thanks for directly speaking on my behalf Dahlkemper.
- ********0
JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
- The problem is not Jose, but Jose's employerlocustsloth
- Yet most of the vitrol in this subject is directed at the worker, forgetting, sometimes, that it is American companies causing the problem you outlinedlocustsloth
- problem you outlinedlocustsloth
- Not to mention that the problem you outlined is a matter of jealousy, the same kind you shun when low income begrudges high-income for what they havelocustsloth
- high-income for what they havelocustsloth
- populists don't understand the complexity of things.pascii
- this Jose Illegal is on to something, where do I sign up?fooler2
- how the fuck does someone who's 'illegal' get state benefits?? and where does $15 an hour come from? $5 would be more realistic.********
- be more realistic.********
- FAIL: Jose can't get benefits w/o a social security # , and if he does who is to blameBattleAxe
- What is to stop Joe Legal from forgetting his SS card at home before going looking for benefits? JazX, you are a dipshit.DrBombay
- dipshit racist.DrBombay
- BonSeff0
dumbass, you have to prove american citizenship for welfare and govt subsidies. where do you find this bullshit??
- byname0
who make Jose "illegal" and Joe "legal"? just happen accidentally?
- ********0
I would have believed the above if the facts weren't so distorted, a bit over exaggerated and misleading.
* Joe illegal gets $10 or less/ per hour. (Joe illegal gets seriously fucked and barely gets minimum wage)
* What the hell is this BS $200/mo. insurance that joe legal pays? Joe illegal doesn't get it, but joe legal doesn't have to get this insurance either.
* Joe legal also gets a tax refund every year. extra $2000/yr
* Joe legal gets benefits from his company. (Does not pay $600/mo)
* Joe legal can afford to buy a house
* Joe illegal can't prove that he even works.That's $11,600 extra a year for joe legal
and $10,400 less for joe illegal.I would figure out more, but these I know to be for certain.
- BattleAxe0
what a Fail with that Joe vs Jose BS !
you just hear shit but you never lived it
- BattleAxe0
by the way you don't have to be a U.S citizen to own property but you still have to pay the tax bill on it, so kill that noise that the Jose's of the world don't pay taxes
- luckyorphan0
GOP turns on Tea Party
by Gabriel Winanthttp://www.salon.com/news/tea_pa…
Out of North Carolina today, there's a story about Republican leaders trying to put the skids under the congressional campaign of Tea Party candidate Tim D'Annunzio, who’s running to challenge vulnerable Democratic incumbent Rep. Larry Kissell. The state Republican Party has been publicizing D'Annunzio's past run-ins with the law and his questionable sanity. Apparently, the guy went through a phase in the 1990s in which he claimed to be the messiah and had a lot of theories about the Ark of the Covenant, 1,000-mile-high pyramids, the New Jerusalem -- you get the picture.
"Mr. D'Annunzio has disqualified himself by his background, his record and his behavior," says the GOP state chairman, which is a pretty strong line for a party chief to take on an ongoing primary.
- ********0
you wankers
- ********0
Obama Will skip Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery; sends Biden...
- That is because he hates America, silly.DrBombay
- You are probably right!********
- ********0
Obama schedules second vacation since oil spill...
- < Non story.luckyorphan
- Non story...really????********
- http://www.cbsnews.c…plash
- 879 day in an 8 year term. That's nearly 2 and a half years... must be nice.IRNlun6
- Yes, it's a non-story. The guy works his ass off, and he's travelling to Chicago. It's not like he's going to Fiji.luckyorphan
- I'd say the same thing about a GOP president. This is nothing.luckyorphan
- I would you say non story if this was Katrina and bush was going on vacation?? Just wondering, because the govt. Response to this nightmare oil spill is really sad!!!
But hey, what can Obama do right???******** - President Bush stayed on vacation during Katrina, and I didn't have a problem with that. He was useless anyways.luckyorphan
- The free market is sorting out the oil spill, isn't that what you want?DrBombay
- not a non story. If it was a story for Bush then it's a story here as well.zenmasterfoo
- luckyorphan0
Obama set to send 1,200 troops to US-Mexico border
By ERICA WERNER and JACQUES BILLEAUD (AP)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, according to an administration official and an Arizona congresswoman.
- luckyorphan0
Forgive me, db, I'm working on a response to your solid post. But in the meantime, I felt compelled to post this analysis:
Rand Paul's Libertarian La-La Land
by Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp…"Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago? I have a personal stake in this one, since I live in a neighborhood where a legal covenant once kept African Americans out. Is this sort of thing cool with him?"
- ********0
Read that ^ article lucky. Its a poor article, and i would call it more of a opinion piece by someone(fix* it is op'd) who didn't do much research or thinking on what he was commenting about. It seems more about playing to a side like a cheerleader to pump them up.... and if i was to end the post there i would be doing the same thing the article did. I'll go point to point and explain why i think that.
Look at the type of language and words used to open the piece up with. Its all hyperbole setting the mood. The first think of actual consequence that he speaks about is the highlighted content about the "crisis" management teams keeping him away from cameras. Being a highlighted link you would think he would spend more time thinking about why that is. I think it was a smart political move and im not surprised in the least. For one he is the first political face being used as a focus point for the teabaggers. Up until now there has been no sort of "teabagger candidate." People may say palin but i think all people know shes just a joke playing off the TB's hype in the media. Getting spokesperson jobs and such, which she did successfully unfortunately. I dont believe she was in anyway an actual political candidate to attack, more of a celebrity like Cruise is for scientology. Now that RP got their support he's target numero uno. And the media and every PR firm is going to have a hayday. Should he be attacked or held accountable for tons of emotionally upset people who are hypocritical have no real structure or beleif system in place, who blindly act on a whim and who don't have a solid idea what they're fighting for just an impression of the idea of freedom? I think not. I saw his acceptance speech and i admit he seemed to pander to them in it. I did not like that, but in politics it is sometimes necessary. And being the first day i'll accept it and see how he does in the future. Now also on keeping him out of the media was also smart. since the shows people would want him on would give him maybe 5 minutes tops of uninterupted time for him to explain the philosophy he is talking about and how it should be applied or not applied on such a large thing as civil rights vs equal rights. The lincoln/douglas debates lasted up to 7 hours sometimes to discuss such things. And still 7 hours wasn't enough. The talkshows that wanted him would be primarily using him for entertainment and ratings, while promoting there own agenda and bias. I hope hes currently working on a long statement to cover it. Because it is a large topic and large topics usually result in political suicide in our twitter type entertainment based culture. Unless you can spin a positive impression with charisma.
Now on the topic of civil liberties im positive after seeing him on maddow he was being truthful. If im allowed to speculate. His philosophy seems to be to uphold equal rights. In the case of private business(property), they should be allowed to refuse business to whomever they like. We do it all the time with no shirt no shoes no service. People may say thats different because thats just discrimination not racial discrimination. But we allow it. We dont sell weapons to hostile countries which is discrimination based on what we believe to be hostile. Businesses are forced to sell parts to competitors. The point being there is many types of discrimination that are acceptable. And those types of dicrimination are acceptable becuase of the idea of equal rights and mainly the part of private property. And based on that philosophy it should stand that racial discrimination should be ok to. If not its reverse discrimination against private business and property. And just incase you dont understand how private business is similiar to private property or think them to be different, because private business is more open then say your car. I'd have to sum it up by saying its privately owned. The owner can control hours, shutdown, change menu do whatever they want when they want as long as it doesnt infringe on someone else rights. Which is to say burn the place down and the fire burns down someone else place. To say someone wanted a burger from a restaurant and the owner shutdown isnt infringing on the customers rights, becuase he had no right in the first place to the burger. Much like in the case if i let my friends drive my car and some stranger sees it and want to drive and i refuse him.
So why is reverse discrimination being allowed in the case of race? Its likely because a century of guilt about the racial injustices that happened. Which is a sad thing but was product of the culture of its time. A socially conditioned mentality that was utterly terrible. And i think RP is happy that the civil rights movement took place, but recognizes the infringement and contradiction of equal rights. And he hasn't pushed for a bill but seems to have simply suggest people look into it. And that the federal government has no right which it really doesnt. Personally i think most people have changed there conditioning in a new generation and more or less colorblind. I do recognize a need in certain states or places with a culture still brought up in such a way. I see it as a necessary evil, in as much as i understand fully its infringing upon rights, and think a nice baby step would be to let federal go and let states decide. Which is probably what he is suggesting.
Racial housing laws fall under the same idea as above. Its either equal rights, or not. And still i find it will be impossible for him to get his message across on such a medium as tv.
The superhighway thing i had to actually look up. My first impression was well if its true it would change my thoughts about the guy. But since there was no context and was only a few sentences i checked it out so i could formulate a rational response and not get sucked into impression or take a statement and add an imaginary context to it that id find suitable. What i found briefly looking through the hot link and short research is that yes physical NAFTA highway doesnt exist. Its primarily a nickname for interconnecting highways and or proposed projects. It has to do with the north american free trade agreement. The one in question he was referring to sounded like trans texas corridor. Which is an actual proposed network... the hotlink stated no such thing exists as called NAFTA, and didnt seem to mention it as primarily a nickname. Then related it to swift boat nuts. The linked article links to this statement http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/… that explicitly states NAFTA as a nickname and the real name is the texas corridor. I may look into the rest but as far as it seems the article is ron paul and not his son. And the Paul he's quoting is ron on the "borderless, mass continent" not rand. He simply used Paul before the quote. Giving the impression for those who didnt look to believe it was Rand. As far as the other quotes the article it linked to said Paul without any source to where those quotes came from. So i cant verify if those others quotes were Rand or Ron or what context they were taken from. Thats so dirty and sneaky.
On the oil spill stuff. I could careless about what words the president uses about his action on othe oil spill and care more about his actions. As far as Rand Pauls view on the presidents position i find it trivial wether its unamerican or not. Especially without context. And especially since im not too sure about what the president has been doing or been saying on the case. I cant make an educated decision and since i cant do that i wont make an emotional one either. But as far as Rand Paul on the mining thing saying its an accident and then coming in to blame someone i agree with. Its completely reasonable. Its a fact that accidents happen, various little mistakes all come together and make a big mistake. It shouldnt be treated liek accidents dont happen and its witch hunt, it should be looked at objectively liek an academic to see what was the cause. Then dealt with. Without people panicking and calling for tons of new retarded safety measures. Remember working at home depot and someone made a honest mistake and someone got hurt. National news came in as an expose secretly filming anyone who they could make look worse then it was out of context. Do to public panic and demanding tons of safety laws which HD ended up doing. The result ended up taking 4 people to do a man job, lack in customer service, lack in downstocking and avaibility of products, which pissed consumers off. And even with safety precautions in place customers would just walk under warning signs which lead to new measures, with layoffs, which meant even less work gets done and less customer service and just a downward spiral. And thats why it is important to objectively look at something rather then irrationally calling for new safety measures. To understand that accidents do happen. And in this sense dont generally take what im saying as hey he doesnt think theres a need for safety. Or he doesnt care if peopel get hurt. Im simply saying look at each regualtion or rule objectively. Because 100% safety means shutting the business down so it doesnt exist. which then what good would that be. Just have the ability to recognize what are 1 in a million accidents. Look at it rationally.
Those are my takes on the 2 line talking points. The author wrote this as a simple dumb opinion piece with no context, no proper evaluation whatsoever, the only evaluation he gave was the impression Rand Paul sucks without a lick of reason, misproper quotes, hot linking to terribly biased sites that didnt do there research in their own articles. And all the hyperbole which is fine being an opinion piece. But this isnt news or good journalism. Just someone blindly bitching for entertainment purposes. My beef with it is why this is considered news? Why this is considered material worthy of reading and being hotlinked? But thats my 2cents with my reasoning behind it lucky. Hope it makes sense wether you agree with it or not.
- TEABAGGERS UNITE®utopian
- Yeh db, it is an editorial. One man's opinion, but he makes solid points.luckyorphan
- You don't think Rand Paul is a lightning rod for the media because he has radical views?DrBombay
- ********0
- I thought you'd approve of that.luckyorphan
- except he's actually going to do itfooler2
- ********0
- ********0
Ex-Detroit mayor gets up to 5 years in prison
Kilpatrick violated probation by failing to report assets, meet conditions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3733…- Has Detroit REALLY sunk this deep?********
- Is it a bad thing to put a corrupt Mayor behind bars?Mimio
- "Has Detroit REALLY sunk this deep?"
Where the hell have you been the past few decades?fooler2 - dunno... I knew he was bad, but shit..********
- and for sure Mimio, they could put 90% of Mayors away, I'm sure, this cat was just stupid********
- Has Detroit REALLY sunk this deep?
- ********0
Pro-illegal-alien lawmaker hit by drunk illegal alien
http://www.bostonherald.com/news…Hey, Rep. Moran, how do you say “karma” in Spanish?
- BWAHAHAHHA!********
- you really are a terrible person, aren't you?locustsloth
- haha how is JazX a terrible person for this? 20% of the stuff he posts, maybe I'd agree. But how the fuck is this any differentmathinc
- This guy is a huge champion of illegal immigrants and he got his by a drunk one.. I'd say the illegal is the 'terrible person' in this case. ;)mathinc
- this case.mathinc
- haha locust did you read the story yet?? Oh man, the guy was also wearing a 'mexican costume' then when he was beingmathinc
- being talked to about the offense he says “Nothing is going to happen to me, man,” Naranjo told the cops. That’s because he was “going back to my home country, Mexico.”mathinc
- being talked to about the offense he says “Nothing is was “going back to my home country, Mexico.”mathinc
- Oh fuck I diced that whole quote up, apologies. Stupid notes window. :(mathinc
- Ohhh man, this makes me a racist?********
- Naranjo was also drunk, driving without a license - LOLzzzzzz!********
- FYI, karma is karma in spanish.IRNlun6
- You're revelling in someone else's pain. End of story. The politics of the story is irrelevant to my commentlocustsloth
- So then by your definition about 90% of the posts on this thread are from 'horrible' people. How about all the liberals who relishmathinc
- when one of those religious self-righteous nut bags who claims gays are an abominations turns out to be gay? The people who post thosemathinc
- who post those stories are horrible too then yeah?mathinc
- Turning out to be gay is not getting into a car accident.locustsloth
- BWAHAHAHHA!
- ********0
Bam's budget is a monstrosity: Deficits are huge. A value-added tax could be coming
http://www.nydailynews.com/opini…I guess VAT could be considered CHANGE... No?
- luckyorphan0
hey db. You're prolific, man. I'll try to keep up. And given that I'm behind, how bout I just respond to your latest in parts:
Regarding civil rights, I'll try to break down how wrong-headed Paul's analysis of the concept of freedom is. Likening the refusal of service to people at restaurants because of their dress is not the same as doing so based on race. One of our core tenets in our country is that all are created equal, and they should be treated equally. What Paul and the libertarian mindset advocates is not freedom for all, but rather freedom for the strong. The Civil Rights Act writes into law the concept that the state shall protect the minority individual from the tyranny of the mob. As Robinson states (in his admittedly pithy but well-reasoned piece), people of ethnic minorities used to be barred from living in whole sections of cities in our country because of this concept of freedom to discriminate. If Paul believes in equal rights and civil liberties, he should believe in the right for an individual to live where ever they choose. But instead, he favors the right of a land-owner to refuse tenants based on race. This is inconsistent with the concept of freedom, and the Civil Rights Act deals with that directly.
The Civil Rights Act outlaws unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the public. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in gov't, and in employment. Title II of the Act outlaws discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce—exempting private clubs.
Your perspective seems to suggest that people should be free to refuse service to others based on race. Does that freedom expand to who they are free to employ? Would they be free to discriminate based on race when it comes to their staff? This happened in the early decades of our nation, and the result was that it became impossible for people of any minority to gain employment in whole regions of our nation. Entire segments of our population were barred from pursuing their careers of choice, getting a good education, expanding into business and capitalizing on the myriad opportunities that are afforded members of the majority based on their racial make-up.
For Paul and other libertarians to advocate for any racial discrimination being accepted as some kind of freedom of choice in this country is absurd, offensive to those of us who are minorities and wrong-headed. It leads to nothing positive, and while I understand the concept, it does not lead to a free and fair society in practice.
- its the contradiction that discrimination is fine by individual rights, as long as its not racial.********
- its a logical fact that if what we know is an equal right, then in this case its being broken. pure logic********
- what about sex or age?DrBombay
- Wether its still a necessary evil is what shoudl be looked at. back in the day for sure. will removing it today take us back 50 years. i highly doubt it********
- 50 yrs? i highly doubt it. in fact i dont think anything would change it would be the same as it is now. and yes on the job selection. its the employers job his right.********
- its the employers to offer its his right to decide. oh and Rand has never advocated racial discrimination. just equal rights********
- its the news that gives it the headline rand advocates RD when hes talkign equal rights. and people pick up and repeat********
- You are not very good at conveying your thoughts. I have no idea what you are saying.DrBombay
- well doc im sorry i cant help you understand better. look up equal rights and the philosophy involved. better explained by others then by me********
- others then by me for sure********
- No thanks. I tend to listen to people who can form intelligible sentences a bit more than those who can't.DrBombay
- its the contradiction that discrimination is fine by individual rights, as long as its not racial.
