Funnier still

Post #345,403 by beepster 7/30/11 8:10:59 AM Reply	Funnier still is how when people rant against that growth..and speak of how it was...they always revert back to racism. You appear to be no exception. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,404 by Another Scott 7/30/11 8:59:08 AM Reply	<sigh>
Post #345,405 by hnick 7/30/11 9:23:20 AM Reply	Re: Funnier still It's not racism we are reverting to, it's feudalism. If there's racism involved, it's just a teeny teeny part. HTH.
Post #345,425 by beepster 7/31/11 1:31:40 PM Reply	Bullshit. Its right in there...always is.. the quote.. "When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South." Always there. You might think its teeny tiny. but its ALWAYS THERE. talking about going back to a smaller government "like it was"...99% of the time is met with..."oh, like when blacks couldn't drink out the same water fountains" or some such nonsense. Nother just did it..and then sighed when I called him on it... oh freakin well. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,432 by Another Scott 7/31/11 2:06:41 PM Reply	Your selective outrage is frequently tiresome. I gave several examples of what things were like in 1960: the poverty rate; a nuclear buildup and actual confrontations during the cold war; and civil rights issues that we've at least partially overcome. Part of the reason why things aren't like that any more is because the federal government spends more on social programs, is more active in civil rights issues, and spends proportionally less on the military now than it did then. I didn't pick 1960 out of my ear - it was in Samuelson's OpEd. It was his example of a time we should return to. My point, right there in this thread, is that talking about spending without talking about what the money actually buys is stupid. But you seemingly want to turn my comment into some rant about racism. It's rather tiresome that you can't stay on a topic. Go play your guitar or something and cheer up. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,437 by beepster 7/31/11 4:19:38 PM Reply	Ah, its selective I see. So why don't we select the topic to stay on..instead of linking to things that change that topic to racism...which that one did? And gee...why does that seem to happen all the time? Oh, I dunno. Convenient way to stop an inconvenient topic. Possibly. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,468 by drook 7/31/11 7:37:49 PM Reply	Well you're sure trying to stop it Pensions: 12.9 Health Care: 14.2 Education: 2.4 Defense: 14.6 Welfare: 8.7 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.6 Yes, let's return to those golden days of 1960 when 40 million (22.2% of the population) was in poverty (census.gov). When we were building nuclear weapons like no tomorrow. When the USSR was shooting down US planes. When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South. Etc., etc. That's 12 issues I count there. Two of them were about racism. He's not the one who keeps focusing on it. -- Drew
Post #345,474 by beepster 7/31/11 7:59:11 PM Reply	Try 5 and 2 of the 5 were. The rest were statistics. Not issues. Issues raised were the cold war and racism. And one of those statistics WOULD actually want you to go back to that age..as people that were in poverty for more than 2 or more months in the 2004-6 time frame was 28.9%...so at least on that front, we were better off back then. http://www.census.go...ics04/table2a.pdf Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,476 by Another Scott 7/31/11 8:15:53 PM Reply	How many people got Food Stamps in 1960? How many people got Medicare in 1960? Comparing apples to apples shows your conclusion that things were better in 1960 is wrong. http://en.wikipedia....rate_timeline.gif Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,491 by beepster 7/31/11 10:37:21 PM Reply	pilot started in 61. Act passed in 64. Hmm. And your census appears to differ from mine yet still shows no improvement since 65...for all that growth in government that is supposed to stop it. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,415 by Ashton 7/30/11 6:05:29 PM Reply	That dead horse won't hunt, especially amidst the urbane IGM of these parts. The idea that actual racism has [ever] vanished from the Puritan-programmed vox populi of Murica! is as ludicrous in 2011 --as it was ... a few days after the Emancipation Proclamation. Dunno where you've been, over your puppy-years--But I can recall epithets hurled [at ANYone 'different'] in my infancy: currently in vogue, to be seen-on-signs/heard-as-'bleeps', Beep -- especially at farRight-ful gatherings/mobs, On the Attack. (Ditto re the WarHawks' signs <VS> Americans gathered to protest the horror of continuing the Vietnam genocides.) The vocabulary/vernacular of the Right-fringes Today is as scurrilous, dehumanizing and Evull as.. anything that came from the Ministry of Propaganda/Göbbels, from 1927 on. I have heard these odious phrases since childhood and I remember them well: unclear what history-of-US version was inculcated into Your yout, but it must have been pretty sanitized. I was fucking-There, kid. You don't misremember shit like that, unless you only 'read about it somewhere', well before your time. {{sheesh}} with this both-sides-do-it pap, your staple of non-engagement dissembling.
Post #345,426 by beepster 7/31/11 1:32:25 PM Reply	if i bothered to translate that.. I'd probably think it was bullshit too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,460 by Ashton 7/31/11 6:53:03 PM Reply	You won't eat your own dog food.. as usual. Can only wonder at your eyes glazing-over / not reading the content of blogs, blurbs and videos --the racial/xenophobic/misogynistic "Sign language" to be observed at many ~~Conservative~~ Reactionary gatherings: Just among those which make it into the corp. meeja; who knows about the regional un-reported variants? One need not impute ingrained racism's omnipresence in '11 political jargon: it's EXPLICIT. That is --if one chooses to See what one looks at, at all. True, though: there are fewer caricatures of Obama + watermelons. Not 0, but ... fewer. But it's not '12 yet, either.
Post #345,475 by beepster 7/31/11 8:00:30 PM Reply	that ain't it. its more along the lines of posting in english as a second language... but if dog food's your thing...ok. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,536 by Ashton 8/1/11 5:35:38 PM Reply	I empathize with that pain you suffer in 'crafting' English.
Post #345,540 by beepster 8/1/11 6:00:43 PM Reply	Clearly Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,593 by Ashton 8/2/11 2:41:15 PM Reply	Rep. Lamborn likens Obama to a "tar baby" http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 "Tar Baby" -- from time to time, this ugly racially charged phrase has come up in our political discourse. Most often, the term is applied to a situation or a thing. John McCain, for example, used it to describe divorces. Likewise, Mitt Romney used it to describe the Big Dig. In both instances, the Republican leaders apologized for using such a loaded word -- even though they hadn't used it to describe an actual person. The same cannot be said for Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who used the term to describe President Obama in a statewide radio interview on Friday. You can listen to that interview here, which we examined on my KKZN-AM760 radio show this morning. Here's the key excerpt: LAMBORN: Even if some people say "well, the Republicans should have done this, or should have done that," they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don't even want to be associated with him, it's like touching a, a tar baby and you get it...you know you're stuck and you're part of the problem and you can't get away. It has been questioned whether the term "tar baby" is always a racist term. In 2006, Ta-Nehisi Coates explored this issue in Time magazine. "Is tar baby a racist term?" he asked. "Like most elements of language, that depends on context. Calling the Big Dig a tar baby is a lot different than calling a person one." In this case, that context is quite clear. [. . .] Of course too ... there's another category we've had noses-rubbed-in, till raw: The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 ..Complete with those cute spreadsheet/pie-chart graphics, supporting the regional diss. Just more Librul distortion, no doubt. Can't be anything to it. Both sides [must] do it. It's an even playing-field. There's no difference between Demos/Repos--it's all in our Minds. cha. cha. Extremist in defense of liberty is no vice--cha.cha.cha, Carrion.
Post #345,598 by mmoffitt 8/2/11 4:19:24 PM Reply	Colorado, eh? It's good to hear from one of the morally superior Northern States.

Welcome to IWETHEY!