Jump to content

When Did People Start Believing Politicians Over The Experts?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You could tell by the way they handled the UN inspectors. among other things.  Of course, we later found out about Cheney stovepiping intelligence through Douglas Feith's "Office of Special Plans" when the real intel didn't say what the bullshitters wanted.  

Yep, that and more . . this is what stood out for me . . 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-can-ignore-heavy-american-tut-tutting/UIOGKWOV33IDSZRHCXCZXVP6OU/

But Quod does have a tiny point - back then it was really discouraging to see how many political scientists and foreign policy analysts were unable to see through those entirely implausible lies.  I'm gonna guess a clear majority of both groups. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What peeves me about it is the obvious and probably only solution is less people. Way less people. Nobody wants to talk about that though. 

I talk about it every chance I get.    I also don't advocate putting 9 people in a 4 person life raft.    All prior and especially the latest $$$ going to those who have more children is simply wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

I dunno if Sol is on record for calling out the WMD and other lies about Iraq in 2003, 

but I am. 

You are actually proud of having chugged that Kool Aid, aren't ya ?? 

I wasn’t until after the invasion. I was skeptical but looking for proof. The Iraq authorization vote was October 2002. I wasn’t at all convinced by Powell’s aluminum tube speech (Feb 2003) but I naively didn’t think Bush would lie. The invasion was March 20, 2003 and we didn’t find shit.   That as I remember was when I gave up. What I didn’t find in Niger wasn’t until July 2003 and the Plame Affair was shortly after.

After all this it was very clear that Bush had lied. Fuck him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

You sir, broached the subject....
And besides, I already did. Stop with child tax credits. Add an additional tax for more than 2 offspring.
As I made clear some ways back in PA, taxation should be on a per capita basis. Divvy up what the cost of the federal government is, and send out a bill for each and every person. Want to see real reform, that would do it.

I just don't think practical solutions matter when something is as unavoidably obvious as a fart in a mini-sub but nobody is willing to even mention it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

I dunno if Sol is on record for calling out the WMD and other lies about Iraq in 2003, 

but I am. 

You are actually proud of having chugged that Kool Aid, aren't ya ?? 

"Chugged"? No, but when every major intelligence service states Iraq had WMDs and was likely to use them, I think you have to accept that.
I also would not be so sure that whatever WMDs Saddam Hussein had were not traded to Syria for safe passage and asylum for his family.

But of course, you always think you know better...... which you do not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, solosailor said:

I talk about it every chance I get.    I also don't advocate putting 9 people in a 4 person life raft.    All prior and especially the latest $$$ going to those who have more children is simply wrong.

I've been saying this since the week those green 'Ecology' stickers first appeared in the early '70's. Put some on all my surf & skate boards. 2 kids is fine and more than enough in my book. Any more.....and you're really not helping things. I remember hearing Tom Leykis one day saying that having more than a couple of kids is about the most egotistical thing that someone can do. As if the world can't exist without seventeen more Mini-Yous. And I agree.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I just don't think practical solutions matter when something is as unavoidably obvious as a fart in a mini-sub but nobody is willing to even mention it. 

Ummmm, how the fuk..... how is it practical solutions don't matter if it is as plain as the nose on your face?
It is real easy stating you think something is wrong. That is pretty much a given. The details, that is where the solutions rise. Not enough to just say something is fuk'd by then wash your hands of it all and expect others to step up to the plate where you are unwilling to do so.
Sorry, but that is how I feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Ummmm, how the fuk..... how is it practical solutions don't matter if it is as plain as the nose on your face?
It is real easy stating you think something is wrong. That is pretty much a given. The details, that is where the solutions rise. Not enough to just say something is fuk'd by then wash your hands of it all and expect others to step up to the plate where you are unwilling to do so.
Sorry, but that is how I feel.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Hillary gets no pass.  Anyone could see that the BUsh administration was bullshitting, and she was in a better position to know that than any of us. 

History gets no pass. You want perfection? You'll get Shitstain.

But I get this a lot from Jeff. He was blaming Pelosi for not impeaching Shitstain, well until she impeached Shitstain and then he was blaming her for impeaching Shitstain for the wrong thing. He wasn't criticizing Shitstain; yeah, that sure didn't happen. You want to blame someone? Affirmatively blame the person responsible.

You want to blame someone for the criminally stupid Iraq War? Blame W. After that, blame the American People for re-electing that piece of shit. Way, way, way down the list, blame Hillary. Definitely blame Hillary. But I think Hillary said it best, albeit stubbornly:

The Iraq war VOTE was my mistake. The Iraq WAR was Bush's mistake.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-her-iraq-vote-but-opting-for-intervention-was-a-pattern/2016/09/15/760c23d0-6645-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html

BTW, I thought she was wrong about Rwanda. I don't think there was any way we could have stopped it at the end. Maybe over the years preceding but it's just dumb to think Tomahawk missiles are going to prevent genocide on game day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

History gets no pass. You want perfection? You'll get Shitstain.

But I get this a lot from Jeff. He was blaming Pelosi for not impeaching Shitstain, well until she impeached Shitstain and then he was blaming her for impeaching Shitstain for the wrong thing. He wasn't criticizing Shitstain; yeah, that sure didn't happen. You want to blame someone? Affirmatively blame the person responsible.

You want to blame someone for the criminally stupid Iraq War? Blame W. After that, blame the American People for re-electing that piece of shit. Way, way, way down the list, blame Hillary. Definitely blame Hillary. But I think Hillary said it best, albeit stubbornly:

The Iraq war VOTE was my mistake. The Iraq WAR was Bush's mistake.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-her-iraq-vote-but-opting-for-intervention-was-a-pattern/2016/09/15/760c23d0-6645-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html

BTW, I thought she was wrong about Rwanda. I don't think there was any way we could have stopped it at the end. Maybe over the years preceding but it's just dumb to think Tomahawk missiles are going to prevent genocide on game day.

Her quote is spot on. W is responsible for the Iraq War. Period.  He can delegate authority but not responsibility. Hillary (and President Biden) cannot avoid responsibility for authorizing the use of force in Iraq. That was their vote. We all knew it would be a first resort, not a last one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Her quote is spot on. W is responsible for the Iraq War. Period.  He can delegate authority but not responsibility. Hillary (and President Biden) cannot avoid responsibility for authorizing the use of force in Iraq. That was their vote. We all knew it would be a first resort, not a last one. 

Agreed.

BTW, Congress grants that authority. What is frustrating about Republicans is that they never accept responsibility. Even when Reagan admitted he lied about Iran Contra

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true; but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

he didn't simply take responsibility. Who you gonna believe? The facts or my amiable heart? Fuck him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Agreed.

BTW, Congress grants that authority. What is frustrating about Republicans is that they never accept responsibility. Even when Reagan admitted he lied about Iran Contra

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true; but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

he didn't simply take responsibility. Who you gonna believe? The facts or my amiable heart? Fuck him.

WRT Iraq, does anyone really think that if Congress had withheld that authority, de facto President Cheney would not have had us going full bore into Iraq without a moment's delay? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, solosailor said:

I talk about it every chance I get.    I also don't advocate putting 9 people in a 4 person life raft.    All prior and especially the latest $$$ going to those who have more children is simply wrong.

It could be called buying votes and in this case I'm for it. 2020 is the decider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

WRT Iraq, does anyone really think that if Congress had withheld that authority, de facto President Cheney would not have had us going full bore into Iraq without a moment's delay? 

I don't blame the Iraq War on Cheney either. I blame it on W. If Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was W's VP, he was still going to attack Iraq. It was a family thing after Saddam tried to have H assassinated when H visited Kuwait for his victory lap. W wasn't even that upset about 9/11 and saw it more as an opportunity. Fuck him.

W didn't even appear with Obama after OBL got dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

It's the 18 to 30 year old Mexican kids that come here from Ensenada, TJ, Tecate & Mexicali and fuking trash this place. They're just absolutely frickin' clueless about the fact that the beaches in Baja are a major asset and a huge foreign tourist magnet. It just drives me nuts......

Be nice to have some of your local friends and you take that garbage pile over to their hotel/motel and give to back to them. That's f'ing inexcusable. Good work BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bhyde said:

Be nice to have some of your local friends and you take that garbage pile over to their hotel/motel and give to back to them. That's f'ing inexcusable. Good work BTW.

Well today's Sunday and the 400 or so cars that were at my 2 local beaches are slowly leaving....so I'll run MaryAnne & Ginger over there in the morning and see just how much more Fukishima shit they left this weekend....and see about getting it hauled off.....or I'll just empty out La Bamba and do it my fuking self. Ughhhhh.....:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quod umbra said:

How about zero tax deductions and/or credits for any children, more than 2 children we tax you additionally for having "excessive" offspring?

That sounds good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Well today's Sunday and the 400 or so cars that were at my 2 local beaches are slowly leaving....so I'll run MaryAnne & Ginger over there in the morning and see just how much more Fukishima shit they left this weekend....and see about getting it hauled off.....or I'll just empty out La Bamba and do it my fuking self. Ughhhhh.....:lol:

It's the penance you have to pay for being such a cantankerous, obnoxious MF'er.  ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I don't blame the Iraq War on Cheney either. I blame it on W. If Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was W's VP, he was still going to attack Iraq. It was a family thing after Saddam tried to have H assassinated when H visited Kuwait for his victory lap. W wasn't even that upset about 9/11 and saw it more as an opportunity. Fuck him.

W didn't even appear with Obama after OBL got dead.

True

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That sounds good.

Go a step farther. More kids in public school than  2 at the same time,  you pay a surcharge on your property taxes which fund the schools.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quod umbra said:

"Chugged"? No, but when every major intelligence service states Iraq had WMDs and was likely to use them, I think you have to accept that.

No, I do not accept that in the slightest.  

You still cannot fathom that all those Intellers were lying . . . and playing you for the sucker that you obviously are. 

There were lots of truth tellers such as the UN weapons inspectors, McClatchy News, and numbers of other analysts. 

But you chose to believe the Blob and its minions - who had a lengthy history of lying out the ol' wazoo. 

(Their lies about the Vietnam War, not to mention Gulf War I, Central America, and etc. should have tipped you off . . . ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I wasn’t until after the invasion. I was skeptical but looking for proof. The Iraq authorization vote was October 2002. I wasn’t at all convinced by Powell’s aluminum tube speech (Feb 2003)

That is a reasonable position to take for a rational person. It also took me some time, into Jan of 2003 or so, to convince myself that Dubya & Co. were that evil, and that disrespectful of the truth. But they were. 

And it was Powell's UN speech that put me over the edge - it was blatantly false, and was completely debunked within hours. 

Powell's chief aide is now a member of Vets For Peace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I don't blame the Iraq War on Cheney either. I blame it on W. If Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was W's VP, he was still going to attack Iraq. It was a family thing after Saddam tried to have H assassinated when H visited Kuwait for his victory lap. W wasn't even that upset about 9/11 and saw it more as an opportunity. Fuck him.

W didn't even appear with Obama after OBL got dead.

True

57e93452077dcc0f208b7015?width=1136&form

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Interesting. So how do you accomplish that? Forced sterilization? Mandatory Birth Control? Limit number of children per person or family? Stop giving people with large families $300 a month per child tax credits?
How about zero tax deductions and/or credits for any children, more than 2 children we tax you additionally for having "excessive" offspring?

Please expand on how we go about that sir.
As my Mother used to say, "Keep the population down!"

See my post above. The solution is easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nice! said:
12 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Interesting. So how do you accomplish that? Forced sterilization? Mandatory Birth Control? Limit number of children per person or family? Stop giving people with large families $300 a month per child tax credits?
How about zero tax deductions and/or credits for any children, more than 2 children we tax you additionally for having "excessive" offspring?

Please expand on how we go about that sir.
As my Mother used to say, "Keep the population down!"

See my post above. The solution is easy.

Follow the money.

Everything always comes down to the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

A limit on children will result in more abortions that ever in the past. There are many who will not temper their behavior.

Not a limit, just make having litters extremely expensive.

Like they do with booze & tobacco - there it's called a "sin tax"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2021 at 9:01 AM, Mark K said:

Worse will be the drop in oil prices which would accompany the industrialized world's abandonment of fossil fuels.

You don't think the price will rise? Fossil fuel exploration and extraction is a risky business, noone does it for giggles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mark K said:

Not my area, but I might work on it if people ever expand on the notion the planet can support an unlimited number of people. Let me know if that ever happens.   

It can probably support a large population of ppl, but it can't support a large population of fossil fuel burning power sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

That is a reasonable position to take for a rational person. It also took me some time, into Jan of 2003 or so, to convince myself that Dubya & Co. were that evil, and that disrespectful of the truth. But they were. 

And it was Powell's UN speech that put me over the edge - it was blatantly false, and was completely debunked within hours. 

Powell's chief aide is now a member of Vets For Peace. 

I couldn’t support it for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the distraction from our efforts in Afghanistan (which I supported until bin Laden was no longer in the country). If UN inspectors weren’t there I might have felt differently, but they were and they wanted more time to do their jobs. Our rationale was obvious bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things have gotten worse and it's natural to fuzz history over. I have to force myself to mentally reconstruct this stuff.

Most importantly, this was all happening in a national post-9/11 frame of mind. First, W allowed 9/11. He discounted the warning signs just as he ignored Katrina.

W had already screwed the pooch in Tora Bora in 2001. He was already diverting what little attention he had from OBL to Saddam in 2001. He fucked up the one thing we wanted as a nation, get OBL. I think he expanded the Afghanistan campaign from get OBL to nation building to paper over the failure at Tora Bora. Failing, present tense, is better than failed, past tense.

W lied us into the Iraq War and fucked up the occupation. He + Rove divided us as a nation from one united to get OBL to one immediately divided about invading Iraq. In many ways, W was just a nicer Shitstain but worse. He was deeply unserious ("I'm the decider!") and fucked up everything he touched. History will bury Shitstain but so far it has been overly kind to W.

image.thumb.png.b827afc4d88360c6e1a62fcf5e5c9faa.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

You are almost entirely wrong here about Biden's student loan policies

You really need to read what you are commenting on.  I said Biden championed the bill that denied students the ability to discharge their debt through bankruptcies. And that is a fact.  He also backed the PACE program.  That, too, is a fact.  Both were vehicles that led to predatory lending and targeted the young, the old, the poor and the trusting.  Another fact.  All for the glory of the banksters.  That's who Joe Biden is. 

This puts him in the same league as the TFG and his R-eich.

Make your weak comparisons all you want but all you're doing is saying your thief is not as bad as their thief.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

It's the 18 to 30 year old Mexican kids that come here from Ensenada, TJ, Tecate & Mexicali and fuking trash this place. They're just absolutely frickin' clueless about the fact that the beaches in Baja are a major asset and a huge foreign tourist magnet. It just drives me nuts......

Get off my lawn sand!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Things have gotten worse and it's natural to fuzz history over. I have to force myself to mentally reconstruct this stuff.

Most importantly, this was all happening in a national post-9/11 frame of mind. First, W allowed 9/11. He discounted the warning signs just as he ignored Katrina.

W had already screwed the pooch in Tora Bora in 2001. He was already diverting what little attention he had from OBL to Saddam in 2001. He fucked up the one thing we wanted as a nation, get OBL. I think he expanded the Afghanistan campaign from get OBL to nation building to paper over the failure at Tora Bora. Failing, present tense, is better than failed, past tense.

W lied us into the Iraq War and fucked up the occupation. He + Rove divided us as a nation from one united to get OBL to one immediately divided about invading Iraq. In many ways, W was just a nicer Shitstain but worse. He was deeply unserious ("I'm the decider!") and fucked up everything he touched. History will bury Shitstain but so far it has been overly kind to W.

image.thumb.png.b827afc4d88360c6e1a62fcf5e5c9faa.png

George wasn't into interventions when he went in office. He was still working under the general feelings of the advisers on foreign police his dad had, real smart guys like Baker. IMO the fact that he had always been the black sheep of the family pushed him towards leaving his dad's people out, leaving about the only faction of the GOP FP network the new American Century neocons....and a smattering of a crew that had been known as Reagan's "B team" (google that) of FP "experts". Those had been the rabid anti-commie guys (like Rumsfeld) who had always been wrong about the true strength of the USSR and the scope of their treat, which dovetailed nicely with their general connections to the military industrial money machine. Cheney had a foot on both of those teams. 

 When it went into the fan on 9/11 those were the people he turned to. They stove piped the intell they wanted George to see and thereby manipulated his thinking. To his credit when it became apparent to George he had been lied to, and about matters of war, by these guys he got rid of them. He couldn't fire Cheney because Cheney had been elected to his office but all the rest were gone or being ignored. He quietly made contact with those old Arabists in State and elsewhere for advise....but by then we were hip deep in the place, had destroyed the Iraq government. No easy way out. 

  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ncik said:

You don't think the price will rise? Fossil fuel exploration and extraction is a risky business, noone does it for giggles.

What happened when consumption goes up and down now? When we use a lot the prices go up. When COVID hit the prices fell. Demand increases prices, over-supply drops them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

George wasn't into interventions when he went in office. He was still working under the general feelings of the advisers on foreign police his dad had, real smart guys like Baker. IMO the fact that he had always been the black sheep of the family pushed him towards leaving his dad's people out, leaving about the only faction of the GOP FP network the new American Century neocons....and a smattering of a crew that had been known as Reagan's "B team" (google that) of FP "experts". Those had been the rabid anti-commie guys (like Rumsfeld) who had always been wrong about the true strength of the USSR and the scope of their treat, which dovetailed nicely with their general connections to the military industrial money machine. Cheney had a foot on both of those teams. 

 When it went into the fan on 9/11 those were the people he turned to. They stove piped the intell they wanted George to see and thereby manipulated his thinking. To his credit when it became apparent to George he had been lied to, and about matters of war, by these guys he got rid of them. He couldn't fire Cheney because Cheney had been elected to his office but all the rest were gone or being ignored. He quietly made contact with those old Arabists in State and elsewhere for advise....but by then we were hip deep in the place, had destroyed the Iraq government. No easy way out.   

I'm going to work through that but I have some family obligations today. Later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I'm going to work through that but I have some family obligations today. Later.

Whilst your out & about.....would you mind swinging by Cal20's place.....and knock that fricken Thai Stick out his hand?......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

George wasn't into interventions when he went in office. He was still working under the general feelings of the advisers on foreign police his dad had, real smart guys like Baker. IMO the fact that he had always been the black sheep of the family pushed him towards leaving his dad's people out, leaving about the only faction of the GOP FP network the new American Century neocons....and a smattering of a crew that had been known as Reagan's "B team" (google that) of FP "experts". Those had been the rabid anti-commie guys (like Rumsfeld) who had always been wrong about the true strength of the USSR and the scope of their treat, which dovetailed nicely with their general connections to the military industrial money machine. Cheney had a foot on both of those teams. 

 When it went into the fan on 9/11 those were the people he turned to. They stove piped the intell they wanted George to see and thereby manipulated his thinking. To his credit when it became apparent to George he had been lied to, and about matters of war, by these guys he got rid of them. He couldn't fire Cheney because Cheney had been elected to his office but all the rest were gone or being ignored. He quietly made contact with those old Arabists in State and elsewhere for advise....but by then we were hip deep in the place, had destroyed the Iraq government. No easy way out. 

  

Neither were Clinton/Gore.  I had a front row seat to their denial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might have helped clarify matters if you had noted that your reference was to the 2005 bankruptcy bill. 

His current student loan policies are better - I was referring to those

But you are correct that the 2005 bankruptcy bill was muy malo, and Liz Warren was right to fight it as best she could. 

Only Beelzebub in the same league as the Drumph. 

I disagree strongly that Biden is anything like as bad, 

though I am getting irritated at a number of his policies. 

Hey, I think we are being civil  !!! 

3 hours ago, Jules said:

He also backed the PACE program.  That, too, is a fact.  Both were vehicles that led to predatory lending and targeted the young, the old, the poor and the trusting.  Another fact.  All for the glory of the banksters.  That's who Joe Biden is. 

This puts him in the same league as the TFG and his R-eich.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Footnote - The media and lots of analysts harp endlessly that "everybody does it", and "they're all the same". 

When folks believe that, they are not paying attention to the experts - one of whom I do not claim to be. 

Both Sidesism empowers the R-eich, and gives folks an excuse to give up and do nothing about our dire straights. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

What happened when consumption goes up and down now? When we use a lot the prices go up. When COVID hit the prices fell. Demand increases prices, over-supply drops them. 

I don't believe demand will increase. Current users will transition away from fossil fuels. New users will need to fund exploration and extraction themselves and I can't see this happening quickly. The geo-political, financial, business, etc stars would need to align. Maybe the Saudis or other big fossil fuel nations will bank-roll peace and prosperity in the emerging nations, but noones done it for the last couple of generations, why would they start now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2021 at 1:59 AM, SloopJonB said:

Not a limit, just make having litters extremely expensive.

Great idea - as long as you are OK with every kid on the planet having "Bezos" for a last name. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
On 7/26/2021 at 1:59 AM, SloopJonB said:

Not a limit, just make having litters extremely expensive.

AFDC sounds like a good idea but ...

Letting kids starve is a better idea, huh.....

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

32FEE528-8493-4B3A-A978-30DCE75B06E1.jpeg

Whoever wrote this must have spent a weekend retreat with Qanon because a normal, reasonable mind is incapable of creating this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jules said:

Whoever wrote this must have spent a weekend retreat with Qanon because a normal, reasonable mind is incapable of creating this. 

I know. When I first read it I thought, "What the hell? The answer is clearly green. These people are crazy."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
On 7/26/2021 at 1:59 AM, SloopJonB said:

Not a limit, just make having litters extremely expensive.

AFDC sounds like a good idea but ...

Letting kids starve is a better idea, huh.....

- DSK

Be still my bleeding heart.

This is a big subject Doug. Many folks think AFDC encourages having more children on top of the ones you can't afford now. But let's say it's a simple as you say. What's the endgame? Would you actually prefer 330M breed ourselves into destitution? And this is one of those pesky deals that grows exponentially. 

Sorry, podna, but you're one of those anti-racism racists. That's the PA drum circle in a nutshell.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Be still my bleeding heart.

This is a big subject Doug. Many folks think AFDC encourages having more children on top of the ones you can't afford now....

Sorry, didn't mean to oversimplify, by so very much at least...........

However, we cannot go back in time and try again only with zero food-aid program such as AFDC. We can only shut it off.

Then what happens? More hungry children, or less? Better or worse, IYHO?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

However, we cannot go back in time and try again only with zero food-aid program such as AFDC. We can only shut it off.

Or we can keep the money going but take the unwanted poor kids, fatten them up and market and eat them. A guy like Jeff Bezos has a lot of the infrastructure already, and the big meat conglomerates can work out the details. This is a win-win for society and the poor folks who are saved the trouble of not caring much for their children and can produce more with abandon. A plus is this eliminates abortion, always a hot topic, and takes Roe v Wade, off the table, so to speak. Breed and Feed is catchy, no?

What we can't do is nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Or we can keep the money going but take the unwanted poor kids, fatten them up and market and eat them. A guy like Jeff Bezos has a lot of the infrastructure already, and the big meat conglomerates can work out the details. This is a win-win for society and the poor folks who are saved the trouble of not caring much for their children and can produce more with abandon. A plus is this eliminates abortion, always a hot topic, and takes Roe v Wade, off the table, so to speak. Breed and Feed is catchy, no?

What we can't do is nothing.

We're not doing nothing, right now.

Isn't that what you were complaining about?

FWIW, we cannot fix it so that people who depend on food stamps or CHIPS or AFDC or whatever, cannot trade that assistance for cigarettes & booze; without effectively taking the kids away from them. We've generally tried to avoid having the kind of gov't that Takes Your Kids Away From You.

We also have established the kind of economic system where working parents can have 3 jobs deemed "essential" but still not make enough money for decent housing & food much less raising kids. IMHO this is the area that needs more work.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Don't think so. Got a specific example? 

Sure, a couple.....

 

7 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

.... Many folks think AFDC encourages having more children on top of the ones you can't afford now......

Sounds kinda complain-y, huh?

Then

2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

...    ...

What we can't do is nothing.

Which I agree with, except putting it in a way that not only makes the untrue implication that nothing is being done now but also does not even remotely suggest a vague direction to look for a solution.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, I don't want to go line by line. The first comment was a direct response to whatever you said immediately prior, not something I care about debating. Nor was I complaining.  I try to offer pragmatic solutions to buffer ultra-lib pie-in-the-sky, and counter Rs "let em eat cake."

The second was in response to you shutting off the money. BTW, I guess you didn't recognize Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal of eating children. If I had a better idea of how to stop people from breeding us into oblivion, or a way to stop women from bearing children short of putting something in the water, you'd have heard it by now. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Shit, I don't want to go line by line. The first comment was a direct response to whatever you said immediately prior, not something I care about debating. Nor was I complaining.  I try to offer pragmatic solutions to buffer ultra-lib pie-in-the-sky, and counter Rs "let em eat cake."

The second was in response to you shutting off the money. BTW, I guess you didn't recognize Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal of eating children. If I had a better idea of how to stop people from breeding us into oblivion, or a way to stop women from bearing children short of putting something in the water, you'd have heard it by now. 

 

Well, I already forgot whatever it was I said that you were not-complaining about. You want the points for working in a cool/smart literary reference, yeah I was gonna give you that. What, do you think -I- think you're on the same level as fukkin' Boothie?!?

But it's funny that you want to call me a faggot libby-rull, within minutes of my suggesting that the state pea farms were a good thing.

As for incenting poor women to have babies they can't afford, I don't have a good answer either, except that it's almost certainly not all about the money. Almost certainly less than half about the money. Poor women have had lotsa babies forever, since long -long- before AFDC.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

But it's funny that you want to call me a faggot libby-rull, within minutes of my suggesting that the state pea farms were a good thing

Oh, I didn't realize you were joking about pea farms. I was not. If it's OK to say faggot, which I did not, is there any sport gayer than men's synchronized diving?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

t's almost certainly not all about the money. Almost certainly less than half about the money.

Cite for that ?

 

7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Poor women have had lotsa babies forever, since long -long- before AFDC.

Yeah, many died in childhood. No mas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

But it's funny that you want to call me a faggot libby-rull, within minutes of my suggesting that the state pea farms were a good thing

Oh, I didn't realize you were joking about pea farms. I was not. If it's OK to say faggot, which I did not, is there any sport gayer than men's synchronized diving?

I wasn't joking. Two of my close thug friends in high school went to the pea farm and learned some life lessons that they abide by, 50 years later. The prison farms as run here in NC seemed to work. Other places like Louisiana, they are often shown as hell-holes that did more harm than good.

And yeah, I say bad words when it seems justified. There are gay men, there are faggots, not quite the same thing. One characteristic of the brain-dead RWNJs is that homosexuality is so deeply abhorrent to them that it's appropriate (IMHO of course) to use the term "faggot" as mockery of them. I apologize to any gay men reading this who have not figured this out (but I'm pretty sure they would).

Synchronized diving? I don't know much about it. Doesn't sound very entertaining to me, and IMHO any "sport" which requires a judge holding up a card with your score is entertainment not competition. Gay? Maybe, I dunno. You find clusters of homosexual men in different cultural pockets including welding. Maybe they like the swimsuits? How the fuck would I know?

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Oh, I didn't realize you were joking about pea farms. I was not. If it's OK to say faggot, which I did not, is there any sport gayer than men's synchronized diving?

Women's water polo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

t's almost certainly not all about the money. Almost certainly less than half about the money.

Cite for that ?

Were poor women having lots of babies before AFDC and SNAP and school lunches etc etc?

I'll cite common fucking sense on this one.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blue Crab wrote . . "Many folks think AFDC encourages having more children on top of the ones you can't afford now..."  

AFDC has not existed for decades. 

People might pay a smidgen more attention to ya if you knew diddley about the subject. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Were poor women having lots of babies before AFDC and SNAP and school lunches etc etc?

I'll cite common fucking sense on this one.

- DSK

how'd you come up with h?alf

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2021 at 8:38 AM, Blue Crab said:

Be still my bleeding heart.

This is a big subject Doug. Many folks think AFDC encourages having more children on top of the ones you can't afford now. But let's say it's a simple as you say. What's the endgame? Would you actually prefer 330M breed ourselves into destitution? And this is one of those pesky deals that grows exponentially. 

Sorry, podna, but you're one of those anti-racism racists. That's the PA drum circle in a nutshell.   

I grew up with support from AFDC. My dad was an aerospace engineer; we were middle class. My mom was stay at home until she went back to school and finished college. I think if we can spend $6T putting holes in the ground in the Middle East, we can support families.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I think if we can spend $6T putting holes in the ground in the Middle East, we can support families.

all growing families forever and ever amen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

all growing families forever and ever amen?

You're right. What was I even thinking? We need to be able to afford our forever wars.

Baby doll, you look totally hot tonight! How do these bra straps work again? You won't be needing these.  Of course, I'll still love you in the morning. But just a second, I need to check this government website to figure out how much a child costs to provide for each year. Let me key in our demographics and geographics. ... Damn. Sorry honey, but we're a marginal case and it would be irresponsible because the govmint needs that money to support our war for a free Australia. i have this new carbon fiber condom from North Sails. It's called America's Cup. Wanna try that?

The 1996 budget for AFDC was $26B. Do you know how many Afghanistans that is? Dude, we need a little patriotism here.

BTW, if you don't want unintended families, support choice and support birth control. For some reason, maybe Bob Dole, but ObamaCare covers erectile dysfunction but not birth control. Seems counter counter productive to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

all growing families forever and ever amen?

I think if you looked at how much gov't support goes to each wealth class (not income, wealth) you might be surprised. Or not. And just want more.  (that housing boom and the stock market boom due to low interest rates?)

Only 8% of the fed budget goes to the Safety net...

image.thumb.png.a3c6fb52150cc01460fed2e384afcefb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2021 at 10:05 AM, Steam Flyer said:
On 7/28/2021 at 6:34 AM, Blue Crab said:
On 7/26/2021 at 1:59 AM, SloopJonB said:

Not a limit, just make having litters extremely expensive.

AFDC sounds like a good idea but ...

Letting kids starve is a better idea, huh.....

- DSK

Fellas, I don't have the interest to go all google in response to how this started, as above. My comment was just off the cuff as it were, and I should have called it welfare or TANF or whatever the current term may be to keep your baby peacock happy. Then Doug made his silly comment. I was just talking about the part where you get more per kid in a single parent home. 

And I'm for abortion baby, and have had chats with the FBI and many flat tires to prove it. Assumptioness is right after whataboutism on this board. 

And no, I don't like blowing all that war money.

A couple of those stats above are bogus though, and if I wanted to play here today, I bet I could find others. The bogus ones are the "8%" to the safety net. And separating Medicare/caid from SS. This is just manipulation. I'd guess I know a shitload of poor people in my area on various forms of govt assistance. A bunch have Medicaid. I think you have to include Medicaid in the safety net, so there goes that made up 8%  ... kaboom.

After war, the two ugliest stats are the 8% for interest on the unmentioned 23T national debt. Neither party seems willing to address this. And this is our forest. All you guys see are trees.

Sure like to read some new ideas instead of all the whining nitpicking.

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Fellas, I don't have the interest to go all google in response to how this started, as above. My comment was just off the cuff as it were, and I should have called it welfare or TANF or whatever the current term may be to keep your baby peacock happy. Then Doug made his silly comment. I was just talking about the part where you get more per kid in a single parent home. 

And I'm for abortion baby, and have had chats with the FBI and many flat tires to prove it. Assumptioness is right after whataboutism on this board. 

And no, I don't like blowing all that war money.

A couple of those stats above are bogus though, and if I wanted to play here today, I bet I could find others. The bogus ones are the "8%" to the safety net. And separating Medicare/caid from SS. This is just manipulation. I'd guess I know a shitload of poor people in my area on various forms of govt assistance. A bunch have Medicaid. I think you have to include Medicaid in the safety net, so there goes that made up 8%  ... kaboom.

After war, the two ugliest stats are the 8% for interest on the unmentioned 23T national debt. Neither party seems willing to address this. And this is our forest. All you guys see are trees.

Sure like to read some new ideas instead of all the whining nitpicking.

 

  

the issue of social welfare spending and the deficit are connected, but they're not the same issue.

And while my comments may be casually thrown around, they're no more "silly" than yours. You mean the "less than half' bit about poor women? You never did address the very common sense and obvious point that poor women have been having children they struggle to provide for, from the dawn of time and in countries where there is no social welfare programs... so clearly, the existence of social welfare is not the motivation. I would suggest you look for proof that money-for-babies plays ANY part in ANY woman's motivation, before you make the assumption that it's a major one (when it very clearly is not).

I don't like blowing all that money on wars, either. Especially not blowing up stuff that KBR and/or Halliburton is gonna contract at cost-plus to rebuild. Oh wait, that's changing the subject back to welfare, sorry......

- DSK

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Doug, "would you just let them starve?" Is a silly question.

It is and it fits right in with "But teachers, Police and Fire Fighters will suffer" kinda nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2021 at 3:35 PM, Olsonist said:

I wasn’t until after the invasion. I was skeptical but looking for proof. The Iraq authorization vote was October 2002. I wasn’t at all convinced by Powell’s aluminum tube speech (Feb 2003) but I naively didn’t think Bush would lie. The invasion was March 20, 2003 and we didn’t find shit.   That as I remember was when I gave up. What I didn’t find in Niger wasn’t until July 2003 and the Plame Affair was shortly after.

Another factor at work in 2003 was careerism (and this point favors the anti-expert side of the argument). 

At that time, within the ranks of the foreign policy elites as well as political scientists and the military  . . 

it was rare for any of them to speak out against the impending invasion 

even though a majority of them knew it was based on lies, and would be an epic disaster. 

Thousands of them were well aware that what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway (it's called being "morally blind") 

They did not want to risk their careers. 

I lost a lot of respect for my profession because of that . . . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...