Seriously, what is wrong with you? You seem to have some real misplaced anger issues.
You know, NoTime, I am angry, but it's placed where it needs to be placed. Against the right-wing, religious-driven, "do-as-I-say, not as-I do" fingerwagging "me-me-me," "win-at-any-cost," glib paternalism that you and your fellow Trumpists on this board embody so well.
The type of stuff that now even 10% of the population thinks is legitimate to say these days is absolutely nuts. And I won't participate in its normalization.
I mean here you write:
And the fact that 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murder. It's culture.
So you're blaming an entire
racial group for half of the murders in the U.S. And you're implying that it's "their problem" to fix. Your comment is simply disgusting. Why don't you put yourself in the shoes of the VAST MAJORITY of black Americans who have not come anywhere close to committing any murders, those who have stable families, etc. and ask yourself how they would feel about your paternalistic comment? Seriously, what is wrong with you? (I'm sure you're even open to discussing how things like gun control could help with this problem, too.)
I was thinking more along the lines of getting knocked up and wanting the government to pay for abortions. Or, getting useless gender studies or art history degrees and wanting the government to bail you out and pay off your student loans. Or, making poor life choices and wanting the government to pay for your healthcare.
What you're implying here is equally disgusting, because it lacks any perspective or attempt to appreciate any of the larger issues.
-Women get "knocked up" (by whom, might I ask?) (nice metaphor for someone I'm sure "values life")
-Women who get "knocked up" regularly expect the government to pay for abortions (I have no doubt you're against birth control too)
-Students who choose to study liberal arts, for which there is a long historical tradition, regularly expect the government to "bail them out""
-As for the purpose of the last statement, I could be generous and interpret it as implying that only poor people who make "bad choices" (as determined in the Court of NoTime) don't "deserve" access to health care, while those that make "good choices" do? Oh wait, no, I'm sure that you think people who make "good choices" don't get sick, and there is no such thing as a poor person who makes "good choices" to begin with, as they'd automatically be rich otherwise.
You are stereotyping and sensationalizing, using the archetype that the right has created of lazy Americans (usually minority Americans), where poor people are all whores, baby killers (some of your friends on this site have painted anyone who disagrees with the Republican Party with that brush, BTW), and criminals and constantly have their hands out asking for everything to be handed to them. I live in the fourth largest city in the U.S. I have seen such attitudes expressed only rarely. I'm sure you live in some suburb, so you must really go out of your way to have personal experiences with all these dregs of society.
You know what, though? Any society will have "dregs" as you and your cohort seem to be so obsessed with, painting an entire group of people with the same brush. I know the right's puritanical view is to just punish them because they "deserve it." That's a great simplistic view as it gives you someone else to blame and elevates your own ego into thinking that you've deserved every last bit of good that has ever come to you. As an extremely advantaged person myself, I'm not that mind-blowingly naive.
If I was getting an extra $1000 on my tax return then, by definition, I do deserve it more than the next guy... because it's my money. It's incredible to me that this concept escapes you. Although, it does explain a lot.
You are 100% correct on this, however, and it was poorly worded. What I was trying to say was that I used to understand Republican policy to be generally about lowering taxes and reducing the government's role in society. That is a PHILOSOPHICAL political view that is entirely defensible. What bothers me is the outcome as expressed by most Republicans and conservatives, including most of the people on this board, is a singular one. "Don't take away MY stuff that I earned!" Fair enough. So I often find myself asking, "What is these people's price?" Is it $1,000 a year in lower taxes? $5,000? $10,000? Is it no taxes at all? (Nevermind that wage levels would be adjusted in the long-term if there were major changes in tax rates . . . but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you as all your money is in investments! Let me guess--those shouldn't be taxed at all, right?) At least some Republicans are able to articulate, "I believe in this political philosophy because I think it is better for the country and for all of my fellow Americans. We can create programs with the best of intentions, but there are always unintended consequences, many of which we can't foresee at the time, and I believe that those unintended consequences far outweigh the good intentions."
We live in a democratic society. You guys are all happy to drive democracy down liberals' throats whenever convenient, but in reality, you aren't OK with it as you know that your political philosophy isn't going to win over a majority of Americans. So to hold on to this grasp, you have to gerrymander, pit American against American, make outrageous claims about voting fraud, and spread conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory! So many of you are so ideological, you'll never give an inch, and are absolutely blind as to your hypocrisy. I turned on Hannity last night to get his take on the NFL, and Mr. Seth Rich himself literally called MSNBC "Conspiracy TV" and said his show was only about factual, non-conspiracy reporting! You believe your own sh*t so much you project what you're doing on the "other side," hence "fake news" and "biased media" are things only Democrats do! You've got so many myths out that you spend very little time even considering the thrust of the truth--you just go in search of more myths--as has been evidenced on this thread! You've got DIRECTFLT spreading some untrue crap he probably read on Facebook (only because it advanced his political view) and BRAVOONE purporting to have a friend's son that I'm sure he doesn't. Granted, BO's e-mail WAS written by an actual soldier, albeit a year ago, but I question the point. Did BO go to look for any "friend's sons" that had expressed support for the NFL? Of course not. Why? Because the MYTH DIES otherwise.
At least I, as a liberal, can acknowledge that there are probably more members of the Armed Forces who agree with Trump than with the NFL. I, however, question what that has to do with it. Somebody else's symbol does not have to be my symbol. I can certainly respect it as such, but I don't need to be bullied into submission. (That said, I was at a baseball game on Sunday and stand and sung the National Anthem and America, the Beautiful for what the flag MEANS TO ME. So no need to throw rocks at me.)