White racism loses again.

[Mercellus Bohren]

The Republican Party will look markedly different in four years, or it will really be put in the dustbin of history; or dead, like most of the white guys that are frothing at the mouth in Indiana diners this morning.

When you dumb motherfuckers say "Reagan this" and "Reagan that" remember that your party is nothing like the party Reagan won with, and that this Reagan Democrat voted for.

You have four years to figure this shit out and get rid of those Tea Party retards or you're done.

Congrats Obama.

[unklbob]

All that "Take back our country" crap doomed them. The changing
demographics in this country makes their politics of exclusion a
guaranteed loser.

Sad part is that a lot of conservative philosophy is very attractive
to a lot of non-Anglos, but the raging crap scares them away.

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

On Nov 7, 11:21 am, Mercellus Bohren <mercell...@yahoo.com> wrote:

POTD.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

False. Ironic that you call a movement that includes West, Cain,
Rubio, Jindal, Love; racist. That's a lotta Tomming going on.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:21:58 AM UTC-6, Mercellus Bohren wrote:
> The Republican Party will look markedly different in four years, or it will really be put in the dustbin of history; or dead, like most of the white guys that are frothing at the mouth in Indiana diners this morning.

Umm, did you notice that the democrat incumbent one by less than a 2% margin.

>
>
>
> When you dumb motherfuckers say "Reagan this" and "Reagan that" remember that your party is nothing like the party Reagan won with, and that this Reagan Democrat voted for.
>
>
>
> You have four years to figure this shit out and get rid of those Tea Party retards or you're done.

We'll be broke by then.

Doug

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Stalemate looks even better now. I'm bi-solution - Romney or
stalemate.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

On Nov 7, 8:50 am, "Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger"

the fact that you can name pretty much every single non-white
Republican in a single sentence shows that there IS a problem. Ha ha,
I kid. I exaggerate. But it is, of course, possible to have a small
minority membership who like certain aspects of the platform while, at
the same time, have a lot of racism going off in a different direction.

[Hoover]

I disagree totally with your post's title, but I agree with your sentiments. This party , run by the likes of Boehner, are almost irrelevant.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

On Nov 7, 12:50 pm, Hoover <Hoov_Hoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I disagree totally with your post's title, but I agree with your sentiments.  This party , run by the likes of Boehner, are almost irrelevant.

Maybe succession that *is* part of the prob, maybe we need to speak
literally when it comes to 'fresh blood' in the party. Murder your
boss to get his title, like that Star Trek "Mirror, Mirror" eppy.

[xyzz-Quack!]

On Nov 7, 1:50 pm, Hoover <Hoov_Hoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I disagree totally with your post's title, but I agree with your sentiments.  This party , run by the likes of Boehner, are almost irrelevant.

Yeah, just like they were irrelevant after 2008. And the Democrats
were definitely finished after 2004.

[addre...@invalid.invalid]

Equally valid to say black racism won. Neither is a sufficient
explanation.

What did win? A clear statement of preference for a Big Government nanny
state.

--
GS Rider

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

http://www.freedomisknowledge.com/freeicecream.html

--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer

[dre]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:59:58 PM UTC-5, addre...@invalid.invalid wrote:

> Equally valid to say black racism won.

Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

It wasn't true when Hillary Clinton had a sizeable lead on Barack Obama with black voters up until Iowa, just as it wasn't true in the presidential election in 2000 when Al Gore won 95% of the black vote, just as it wasn't true in 2004 when John Kerry won 93% of the black vote, and it *still* isn't true just because these last two times that the person with a (D) behind his name happens to be black.

[Jim Brown]

I heard today that there are more elected Latino Republicans than
elected Latino Democrats in the US.


You can fact check if you don't believe it.

[Jim Brown]

Exactly. It really sounds silly when this stuff is brought up every
four or eight years.

If this economy really turns south the next three or four years, the
Dems are going to have a tough time getting elected. If it keeps
improving and unemployment drops significantly, Hilliary may well be
swept into office.

[Eric Ramon]

let me ask you, assuming you couldn't recognize all of them on sight,
should they be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship?

What I'm saying is the Republican policies are your problem, not
whether some number of a group are running for office, or are in
office. We're talking about hundreds out of 50 million.

[Kyle T. Jones]

Didn't you hear? The party that happens to be in charge when the
country comes out of a depression is gifted with 20 years of continuous
rule.

Cheers.

--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012

[Kyle T. Jones]

This is your problem. The continuous and relentless assertion that
anyone that even thinks of voting left of @#$%ing Karl Rove is a welfare
queen. Think I remember ol' Romney yappin' away on this topic.

You know, there isn't some kind of Teh Proof Of Supply Side Awesomeness
(A. Rand) floating around. And some folks see that, over the last
thirty years, the top has done pretty @#$%ing awesome, while the middle
has been just barely treading water, and think - hmmm, those "Job
Creators" (bullshit) haven't miraculously decided to just "share the
wealth with their employees" so far, what do these supply siders think
is gonna motivate them if we coddle 'em further?

They used to share far less of course - when the US really didn't have a
middle class - see labor movement. Those evil unions.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Jim Brown <jimbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I heard today that there are more elected Latino Republicans than
>elected Latino Democrats in the US.
>
>You can fact check if you don't believe it.

It's hard to fact check if you don't give a source. I found this
which says that 23 of 31 Latino Reps are Democrats:
|
| A record-setting 31 Latinos will take seats in the U.S.
| Congress in January, according to the non-partisan National
| Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
| Three of them -- Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), Marco Rubio (R-F.) and
| Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- will join the Senate, while 28
| will head to the House of Representatives.
|
| The Hispanic milestone came as Latinos bumped up their
| share of the electorate to 10 percent, making the country's
| largest minority an increasingly important demographic for
| politicians.
|
| The Latino U.S. Representatives in the 113th U.S. Congress
| will lean liberal heavily, with 23 of them hailing from the
| Democratic Party.
|
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/latino-congress-members_n_2090311.html>

So, I guess until you give a source, you're wrong.

--bks

[Eric Ramon]

On Nov 7, 7:52 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/latino-congress-members_n_20...>

>
> So, I guess until you give a source, you're wrong.
>
>     --bks

I found the same list but I believe Jim is including all offices,
nationwide...state, city and such.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 7, 7:52�pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>> Jim Brown �<jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I heard today that there are more elected Latino Republicans than
>> >elected Latino Democrats in the US.
>>
>> >You can fact check if you don't believe it.
>>
>> It's hard to fact check if you don't give a source. �I found this
>> which says that 23 of 31 Latino Reps are Democrats:

>> �|
>> �| The Latino U.S. Representatives in the 113th U.S. Congress

>> �| will lean liberal heavily, with 23 of them hailing from the
>> �| Democratic Party.

>> �|

>>
>> So, I guess until you give a source, you're wrong.
>

>I found the same list but I believe Jim is including all offices,
>nationwide...state, city and such.

Tough to do that count. Sounds like anecdata.

--bks

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Nov 7, 10:01 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

>     --bks- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe it was senate or gubernatorial?

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 7, 10:31 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/12 1:59 PM, address...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mercellus Bohren<mercell...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

> >> The Republican Party will look markedly different in four years, or it
> >> will really be put in the dustbin of history; or dead, like most of the
> >> white guys that are frothing at the mouth in Indiana diners this morning.
>
> >> When you dumb motherfuckers say "Reagan this" and "Reagan that" remember
> >> that your party is nothing like the party Reagan won with, and that this
> >> Reagan Democrat voted for.
>
> >> You have four years to figure this shit out and get rid of those Tea
> >> Party retards or you're done.
>
> >> Congrats Obama.
>
> > Equally valid to say black racism won.  Neither is a sufficient
> > explanation.
>
> > What did win? A clear statement of preference for a Big Government nanny
> > state.
>
> This is your problem.  The continuous and relentless assertion that
> anyone that even thinks of voting left of @#$%ing Karl Rove is a welfare
> queen.  Think I remember ol' Romney yappin' away on this topic.
>
> You know, there isn't some kind of Teh Proof Of Supply Side Awesomeness
> (A. Rand) floating around.  And some folks see that, over the last
> thirty years, the top has done pretty @#$%ing awesome, while the middle
> has been just barely treading water, and think - hmmm, those "Job
> Creators" (bullshit) haven't miraculously decided to just "share the
> wealth with their employees" so far, what do these supply siders think
> is gonna motivate them if we coddle 'em further?

You present the epiphany that "the top" does better than "the middle."
No doubt you're surprised as well that "the middle" is above the
bottom. And the only fair and compassionate thing to do to right this
wild anomaly is take things from the top and give them to the bottom,
until every one is in the middle. Because nothing can be fair until
everything is mediocre. Then will everything be equal.

People are taught that evolution moves inexorably #Forward! It does
not. Entropy means that humanity is evolving downwards, towards the
stupid, the inert, and the mundane. All systems evolve towards
extinction. In that sense libtards comprise the ubermench.

[unklbob]

Wow, did you spend a lot of time shoveling that load of horseshit?

Cockroaches calling on line one, and your roaches are doing just fine.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2012-11-08, Your smrat ? <your...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People are taught that evolution moves inexorably #Forward! It does
> not. Entropy means that humanity is evolving downwards, towards the
> stupid, the inert, and the mundane. All systems evolve towards
> extinction. In that sense libtards comprise the ubermench.

Indeed. And the degeneration seems to be happening, ironically,
without regard to race or creed. The white religious right didn't show
up for Romney. At all. They apparently couldn't vote for a Mormon.

So we have a stupid decision for the country made almost entirely by
prejudice and irrational fear. Blacks voted monolithically for a black
because he was black; whites failed to vote for a Mormon because they
were Christian; single women irrationally thought they might lose
their rights; and Hispanics voted for their country of origin instead
of their adopted country.

White liberals voted for their paychecks and pensions, without regard
to whether that is sustainable. I think it would be nice if they had
voted for freedom and vitality, but as a believer in the motivations
of self-interest I can't blame them too much. They are shortsighted,
though, especially young ones in education. The bloodletting is coming
shortly, and the education bubble will collapse.

And when the inevitable reckoning comes, as it will now I believe in
the next four years, the very people that voted Obama in, or failed
to vote Romney in, will be hurt the most. Entropy? Yes. But also karma
coming back at you.

With luck it will be a cleansing; if not, and we instead entrench the
existing bureaucracy without reforming government, it will be a long,
long, dark period.

I've made my decision. I am going to scale back. Sell many of my
possessions. Shed obligations and expense. And batten down the
hatches. I am not alone, and that means jobs are going to hemorrhage
from this economy.

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Disculpa Senora Your smrat �, pero did you really mime the following on
11/8/2012 7:50 AM???

Jeebus - learn to think for yourself, man.
What a load of recycled horseshit!

--
There lived a sage in days of yore
And he a handsome pigtail wore
He wondered much and sorrowed more
Because it hung behind him

[dre]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:47:19 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2012-11-08, Your smrat ? <your...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > People are taught that evolution moves inexorably #Forward! It does
>
> > not. Entropy means that humanity is evolving downwards, towards the
>
> > stupid, the inert, and the mundane. All systems evolve towards
>
> > extinction. In that sense libtards comprise the ubermench.
>
>
>
> Indeed. And the degeneration seems to be happening, ironically,
>
> without regard to race or creed. The white religious right didn't show
>
> up for Romney. At all. They apparently couldn't vote for a Mormon.
>
>
>
> So we have a stupid decision for the country made almost entirely by
>
> prejudice and irrational fear. Blacks voted monolithically for a black
>
> because he was black; whites failed to vote for a Mormon because they
>
> were Christian; single women irrationally thought they might lose
>
> their rights; and Hispanics voted for their country of origin instead
>
> of their adopted country.

...Wow. I may not have been harsh *enough* on you.

> White liberals voted for their paychecks and pensions, without regard
>
> to whether that is sustainable.

Aside from the mind-bogglingly racist fact that you seem to think that only _white_ liberals can be concerned with pay and pensions, it is indeed sustainable if you keep the top 1% from sucking up all of the productivity gains made over the last several years. This country has never been more productive, and yet pay and benefits don't reflect this. Unless you're one of the elite few at the top.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Nov 8, 8:15 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:47:19 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:

> Aside from the mind-bogglingly racist fact that you seem to think that only _white_ liberals can be concerned with pay and pensions, it is indeed sustainable if you keep the top 1% from sucking up all of the productivity gains made over the last several years.  This country has never been more productive, and yet pay and benefits don't reflect this.  Unless you're one of the elite few at the top.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmmm - and who has been the president the last few years?

(sorry - couldn't resist)

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2012-11-08, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 8, 8:15?am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:47:19 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> > On 2012-11-08, Your smrat ? <yoursm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > People are taught that evolution moves inexorably #Forward! It does
>>
>> > > not. Entropy means that humanity is evolving downwards, towards the
>>
>> > > stupid, the inert, and the mundane. All systems evolve towards
>>
>> > > extinction. In that sense libtards comprise the ubermench.
>>
>> > Indeed. And the degeneration seems to be happening, ironically,
>>
>> > without regard to race or creed. The white religious right didn't show
>>
>> > up for Romney. At all. They apparently couldn't vote for a Mormon.
>>
>> > So we have a stupid decision for the country made almost entirely by
>>
>> > prejudice and irrational fear. Blacks voted monolithically for a black
>>
>> > because he was black; whites failed to vote for a Mormon because they
>>
>> > were Christian; single women irrationally thought they might lose
>>
>> > their rights; and Hispanics voted for their country of origin instead
>>
>> > of their adopted country.
>>

>> ...Wow. ?I may not have been harsh *enough* on you.

>>
>> > White liberals voted for their paychecks and pensions, without regard
>>
>> > to whether that is sustainable.
>>

>> Aside from the mind-bogglingly racist fact that you seem to think that only _white_ liberals can be concerned with pay and pensions, it is indeed sustainable if you keep the top 1% from sucking up all of the productivity gains made over the last several years. ?This country has never been more productive, and yet pay and benefits don't reflect this. ?Unless you're one of the elite few at the top.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>
> Hmmm - and who has been the president the last few years?
>

I would have said "liberals", but blacks voted for race first. If a
significant number of blacks had voted for Romney, I would have said
liberals. But you had huge numbers of intelligent blacks who should
know that Romney was better, yet voted their race. Now that's racism.

--
People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry

[dre]

The "Commie Socialist", of course!

But then again, it's not like this trend is new or merely restricted to 2009-2012.

[dre]

You have *got* to be fucking kidding me.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Nov 8, 8:28 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:

Note buying that.

"blacks" voted quite heavily for Kerry and Gore - quite possibly at a
higher or at least similar rate

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2012-11-08, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:28?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"

Not in nearly as high a percentage of population; many didn't vote.
That is a half-vote for the Republican, and it is because they aren't
getting enough benefit to vote. It was enough to elect Bush.

Also, the choice was nowhere near as clear. If either of them had the
record of Obama, they would have been routed.

--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

> But then again, it's not like this trend is new or merely restricted to 2009-2012.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope - been building for a long time

Not an easy issue actually - lots of moving parts

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 8, 8:49 am, Zaphod Beeblebrox <victor.kin...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Jeebus - learn to think for yourself, man.
> What a load of recycled horseshit!

That's pretty HiLARioUS coming from someone who just voted for FDR by
proxy, man.

[dre]

So which is it? Is it that "intelligent blacks" should have voted for Romney but didn't, or is it that black people were more motivated to vote for a president who looked like them? Because I can tell you, after 43 white presidents and that whole slavery thing, only one of those is even remotely true, and even then, it's far more of a nuanced issue and *certainly* not "racism". Otherwise you could have stuck Herman Cain out there and he'd have gotten the same percentages.

> Also, the choice was nowhere near as clear. If either of them had the
>
> record of Obama, they would have been routed.

No.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

:-)

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"dre" <andre...@gmail.com> wrote

> Equally valid to say black racism won.

Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

It wasn't true when Hillary Clinton had a sizeable lead on Barack Obama with black voters up until Iowa, just as it wasn't true in
the presidential election in 2000 when Al Gore won 95% of the black vote, just as it wasn't true in 2004 when John Kerry won 93% of
the black vote, and it *still* isn't true just because these last two times that the person with a (D) behind his name happens to be
black.

-----

You can always count on the support of Paul.

--Tedward

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Your smrat Ž presented us with the following on 11/8/2012 9:59 AM:

Que?

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross - Not Sinclair Lewis

[addre...@invalid.invalid]

EBT cards for everybody!

--
GS Rider

[Antonio Veranos]

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American, cons...@duxmail.com]
[Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:47:18 -0600]

: Blacks voted monolithically for a black
: because he was black

You should check some past elections of non-black Democrats who ran for
President to get a good look at the racist who wrote the above post.


--
Antonio Veranos

<insert witty comment here>

[Kyle T. Jones]

I'm talking about relative growth in wealth over the last thirty years.
You're being an asshole. HTH.

Cheers.

And the only fair and compassionate thing to do to right this
> wild anomaly is take things from the top and give them to the bottom,
> until every one is in the middle. Because nothing can be fair until
> everything is mediocre. Then will everything be equal.
>
> People are taught that evolution moves inexorably #Forward! It does
> not. Entropy means that humanity is evolving downwards, towards the
> stupid, the inert, and the mundane. All systems evolve towards
> extinction. In that sense libtards comprise the ubermench.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote

Would you like an iPhone with that? Or maybe a $600 laptop and a
Starbucks latte while you update your Faceplant page on a free WiFi
connection?

That would have cost you a shitload 15 years ago and been cludgy
as hell.

--Tedward

[Kyle T. Jones]

Setting aside the fact that I had a laptop and Starbucks 15 years ago,
this doesn't address the point of relative growth in wealth between the
top and the middle any more than smratie did.

Cheers.

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 9, 6:41 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> this doesn't address the point of relative growth in wealth between the
> top and the middle any more than smratie did.

I didn't address it because I don't care about it. I think the whole
idea horseshit. I don't find it unusual that rich people have more
money than poor people. I don't think it troubling that poor people
have less money than rich people. I don't find it strange that the
investor class makes more money faster than the working class or that
the welfare class makes less money slower than the working class. I
think these things endemic and definitional. I don't want to live in a
utopia and certainly not in your idea of one, which is grounded in the
diminution of individual liberty by virtue of government coercion. But
then I'm not a facist.

Here is your argument, such as it is:

"those Job Creators [haven't] shared the wealth with their employees

so far, what do these supply siders think is gonna motivate them if we
coddle 'em further?"

I reject the planted axioms:

- That you know what is "fair." You don't. That you think you do is
absurd.

- That the government's failure to confiscate property from the
citizenry comprises "coddling."

- That employees deserve a "share of the wealth." Nobody deserves
anything, except those who have earned a good hanging.

- That the government is capable of ameliorating inequality, cares to,
or would know how to even if it did.

Here's my idea of fairness. It's a program called "Brother Kenya Spare
a Dime": the government confiscates 50 percent of your family's wealth
and gives it to some slob who lives in a mud hut in Zimbabwe. Because
it's not "fair" that for 15 years you've been drinking latte and
watching internet porn while he's only had a skinny cow. You should be
ashamed of being coddled for so long while people are starving. Oh and
BTW if you cavil? You're teh racist.

Stupid idea, isn't it. Well, it's your idea, only the payee is
changed.

[Huck Kennedy]

On Nov 8, 7:19 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

<iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:15 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Aside from the mind-bogglingly racist fact that you seem to think that only _white_ liberals can be concerned with pay and pensions, it is indeed sustainable if you keep the top 1% from sucking up all of the productivity gains made over the last several years.  This country has never been more productive, and yet pay and benefits don't reflect this.  Unless you're one of the elite few at the top.
>

> Hmmm - and who has been the president the last few years?
>
> (sorry - couldn't resist)

You should have. It was an inane remark, Jon. Would you
like to compare the salary of the President of the United States with
that of a typical CEO?

Huck

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 11/10/12 8:07 AM, Your smrat Ž wrote:
> On Nov 9, 6:41 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
>> this doesn't address the point of relative growth in wealth between the
>> top and the middle any more than smratie did.
>
> I didn't address it because I don't care about it. I think the whole
> idea horseshit. I don't find it unusual that rich people have more
> money than poor people.

And I don't care to discuss the uninteresting proposition that rich
folks are rich.

So I guess we've reached an impasse.

Cheers.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote

The laptop didn't cost $600 and Starbucks didn't have Wifi.

I'm questioning your measurement of wealth. 40 years ago only large
institutions could own any computing power that now pales compared
to today's consumer gadgets.

It started with things like radios. Then calculators. Then PCs. Then
laptops. Now it's smrat phones. Soon to be space travel.

Actually it started with cars. Or maybe the industrial revolution. You
think being poor sucks today? It sucked a lot worse in the past.

--Tedward

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote

Crickets are feeding at the dollar menu.

--Tedward

[Kyle T. Jones]

Nothing you said addresses the growing gap between the top and the
middle over the last thirty years in the US. That widening gap is just
an objective fact, which is why I think folks always respond indirectly
- as you did above - when I mention it.

I did think your post interesting - we can discuss that if you want.

Yes, technology has advanced, and people definitely spend more on
non-essentials like phones, TVs, and entertainment in general. I'm sure
it sucked to live in Teh Dark Ages. Poor folks in America are
definitely better off than poor people from the distant past, or even
distinct Africa.

Cheers.

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 13, 8:31 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> Nothing you said addresses the growing gap between the top and the
> middle over the last thirty years in the US.  That widening gap is just
> an objective fact, which is why I think folks always respond indirectly
> - as you did above - when I mention it.

Except you haven't explained why that single statistic taken in a
vaccum is important, interesting, or compelling; if or whether it
justifies any particular social policy; and if it does, why it does.
You just keep repeating it like a demented doomsday parrot. To me it's
as meaningless as saying "but you haven't addressed my point that
Boise is the capital of Idaho."

Here:

A recent study in the Ecomonist "casts doubt on the widespread view
that inequality causes (or is associated with) a host of social
problems."

Here:

"Recent discussions of economic inequality, marked by a lack of
clarity and care, have confused the public about the meaning and moral
significance of rising income inequality. Income statistics paint a
misleading picture of real standards of living ... the dispersion of
incomes at any given time has .... a tenuous connection to human
welfare or social justice."

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/17329326

There. I've addressed your point and the answer is: you're confused
about the significance of rising income inequality.

Oh sure, I know, that's the Cato Institute, those radicals. It won't
be true until former Enron advisor Paul Krugman says it is. I know
this because Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote

You other objections were well addressed by the bristled jerk Your
Srmrat.

> Poor folks in America are definitely better off than poor people from the distant past, or even distinct Africa.

I'd argue that poor folks in every decade are better off than poor
folks in the previous decade. Why the rising inocme gap is more
important than this is what I do not get. When you think about it,
the rising income gap is sorta inherent in the system. But it does
not a priori condemn the system.

--Tedward

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Ronald Reagan apparatchik Lee Atwater explains it all to you:
|
| You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger."
| By 1968 you can't say "nigger"--that hurts you, backfires.
| So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights,
| and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now,
| you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things
| you're talking about are totally economic things and a
| byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites....
| "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the
| busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than
| "Nigger, nigger."
|
<http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy?_r=hpyr>

--bks

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 14, 10:26 am, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com>
wrote:

> the bristled jerk Your Srmrat.

And I'm so trying to fit in.

*BURP*

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Your smrat �" <your...@gmail.com> wrote

> the bristled jerk Your Srmrat.
<
<And I'm so trying to fit in.
<
<*BURP*

As my 8th grade math teacher once said, "I may look like an
elephant, but I have a memory like one too!"

Except I'm not fat. I don't think that teacher ever got laid.

--Tedward

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 11/14/12 8:36 AM, Your smrat � wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:31 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
>> Nothing you said addresses the growing gap between the top and the
>> middle over the last thirty years in the US. That widening gap is just
>> an objective fact, which is why I think folks always respond indirectly
>> - as you did above - when I mention it.
>
> Except you haven't explained why that single statistic taken in a
> vaccum is important, interesting, or compelling; if or whether it
> justifies any particular social policy; and if it does, why it does.
> You just keep repeating it like a demented doomsday parrot. To me it's
> as meaningless as saying "but you haven't addressed my point that
> Boise is the capital of Idaho."
>

Well, Boise is actually the most populous city in Idaho.

> Here:
>
> A recent study in the Ecomonist "casts doubt on the widespread view
> that inequality causes (or is associated with) a host of social
> problems."
>
> Here:
>
> "Recent discussions of economic inequality, marked by a lack of
> clarity and care, have confused the public about the meaning and moral
> significance of rising income inequality. Income statistics paint a
> misleading picture of real standards of living ... the dispersion of
> incomes at any given time has .... a tenuous connection to human
> welfare or social justice."
>
> http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/17329326
>
> There. I've addressed your point and the answer is: you're confused
> about the significance of rising income inequality.
>

You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:

"When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
the prices of goods that rich people consume."

How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".

So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.

Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
right thing to do.

Cheers.

> Oh sure, I know, that's the Cato Institute, those radicals. It won't
> be true until former Enron advisor Paul Krugman says it is. I know
> this because Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 14, 8:21 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> > you're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
>
> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.

No, you're confused about the significance of rising income
inequality. Polly wanna cracker?

> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:

A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
scrolled through a tad slower.

> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
>
> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
> consumes?  I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".

Your strawman lacks a brain.

> So, like, next.  All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.

The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
nonsequitur.

> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
> transmission of wealth.  Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
> right thing to do.

Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 11/14/12 8:53 PM, Your smrat Ž wrote:
> On Nov 14, 8:21 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
>>> you're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
>>
>> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
>
> No, you're confused about the significance of rising income
> inequality. Polly wanna cracker?
>

You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality. You
have decided to accept the conclusions of a run of the mill Cato hit
piece over the considered opinions of a large majority of the economists
on the planet.

>
>
>> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
>
> A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
> Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
> you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
> quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
> the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
> scrolled through a tad slower.

You want to make a big deal here with the hand-waving...

>
>
>> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
>> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
>> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
>> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
>> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
>> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
>>
>> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
>> consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
>
> Your strawman lacks a brain.
>

because you cannot dispute that the Cato piece rests it's case on this
proposition - that goods poor folks consume have gotten cheaper, so
growing income inequality is a non-issue.

Which seems about as smrat as you.

>
>> So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
>> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
>> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
>
> The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
> nonsequitur.
>
>
>> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
>> transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
>> right thing to do.
>
> Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
> that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
> explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
> facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
> most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.
>
>
>
>

You seem extremely poorly informed, so didn't catch the reference I was
making as a joke. Perhaps reading outside of Cato once in a great while?

Cheers.

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 15, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.  You
> have decided to accept the conclusions of a run of the mill Cato hit
> piece over the considered opinions of a large majority of the economists
> on the planet.

And you're confused about logic. See, you keep mentioning a single
economic fact - rising income inequality - as if the mere mention of
it proves something. I disagree and provided sources that say it's a
meaningless measure, two of them actually, one, the Economist, a self
described "liberal" journal, and the other Cato from the right. Since
you postulate that rising income inequality is by itself an important
economic indicator, the onus is on you to prove its significance. The
onus isn't on me to disprove every numskullery spouted by some dope on
the internets. And since your vague appeal to authority - "the

considered opinions of a large majority of the economists on the

planet," good grief - is unavailing, you can try again or you can
plonk off with your tail between your legs.

>
> >> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
>
> > A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
> > Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
> > you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
> > quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
> > the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
> > scrolled through a tad slower.
>
> You want to make a big deal here with the hand-waving...

I have no idea what that means. Why not try some of those acronyms and
winkies usenet spanktards such as yourself find so devastating. AYB.
ROFLMAO! :)))))

>
>
>
> >> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
> >> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
> >> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
> >> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
> >> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
> >> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
>
> >> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
> >> consumes?  I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
>
> > Your strawman lacks a brain.
>
> because you cannot dispute that the Cato piece rests it's case on this
> proposition - that goods poor folks consume have gotten cheaper, so
> growing income inequality is a non-issue.

Good grief muttonhead, you pulled a quote from page 8 of a 30 page
article you didn't read, which quote is not even written by the
authors, claim that the entire article rests on that proposition,
pronounce the article "bonkers" (I assume thats an economic term of
art) and I'm supposed to disprove that bald assertion? Fine. You're
wrong and it doesn't. Thus is your hypothesis disproved. And you
cannot dispute that your hypothesis is disproved, because not only do
I gainsay it but the considered opinion of a majority of gainsayers on
the planet is in agreement with mine including those in China, North
Korea, and Equador.

>
> Which seems about as smrat as you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> So, like, next.  All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
> >> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
> >> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
>
> > The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
> > nonsequitur.
>
> >> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
> >> transmission of wealth.  Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
> >> right thing to do.
>
> > Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
> > that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
> > explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
> > facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
> > most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.
>
> You seem extremely poorly informed, so didn't catch the reference I was
> making as a joke.  Perhaps reading outside of Cato once in a great while?

I got your reference. I thought it innane so ignored it and instead
related a brief monkeyshine about my sainted grandmother and the
Pentacost. Ironically her name was Goldwater. Sounded suspiciously
Jewish to me but she had no reason to lie. Anyway, I assume from the
fact that you did not catch my reference to the election of 1964 - in
his heart you know he's right - that you hate the Baby Jesus. I do
not, although I reject His claim to divinity, preferring to think of
Him as precocious.

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 11/15/12 12:45 PM, Your smrat Ž wrote:
> On Nov 15, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
>> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality. You
>> have decided to accept the conclusions of a run of the mill Cato hit
>> piece over the considered opinions of a large majority of the economists
>> on the planet.
>
> And you're confused about logic. See, you keep mentioning a single
> economic fact - rising income inequality - as if the mere mention of
> it proves something. I disagree and provided sources that say it's a
> meaningless measure, two of them actually, one, the Economist, a self
> described "liberal" journal, and the other Cato from the right.

The Cato piece doesn't claim that. I can't speak for the other source,
because you didn't provide a link or the name of the author or article.
I'm pretty sure, if that article exists, it also doesn't claim that.

HTH.

Cheers.

[Your smrat ®]

On Nov 15, 6:04 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> The Cato piece doesn't claim that.

And now you're reduced merely to lying. Because that's exactly what it
says.

-- "If we’re interested in trends in overall material well-being,
income statistics can provide a surprisingly distorted picture."

-- "Income inequality, in isolation, tells us very little."

-- "Economic inequality is a reliable indicator of neither individual
well-being nor social justice."

-- "Income inequality ... convey[s] exceedingly little information
relevant to the ... evaluation of social and political institutions."

And so on. Thus are you shown to be completely FOS.

> I can't speak for the other source,
> because you didn't provide a link or the name of the author or article.
>   I'm pretty sure, if that article exists, it also doesn't claim that.

I provided a quote from the Economist, describing its findings: "Our
special report casts doubt on the widespread view that inequality

causes (or is associated with) a host of social problems."

Not a hard quote to locate and anyway you don't need a link to deny
that that's what the Economist said, to lie about what's in the
article, or to repeat yourself over and over. And besides you're
already "pretty sure" of what it says anyway.

Fuck off now, I'm done with you.

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 11/16/12 8:29 AM, Your smrat ® wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:04 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
>> The Cato piece doesn't claim that.
>
> And now you're reduced merely to lying. Because that's exactly what it
> says.
>
> -- "If we’re interested in trends in overall material well-being,
> income statistics can provide a surprisingly distorted picture."
>
> -- "Income inequality, in isolation, tells us very little."
>
> -- "Economic inequality is a reliable indicator of neither individual
> well-being nor social justice."
>
> -- "Income inequality ... convey[s] exceedingly little information
> relevant to the ... evaluation of social and political institutions."
>
> And so on. Thus are you shown to be completely FOS.
>

You still aren't there with the Cato piece.

>
>> I can't speak for the other source,
>> because you didn't provide a link or the name of the author or article.
>> I'm pretty sure, if that article exists, it also doesn't claim that.
>
> I provided a quote from the Economist, describing its findings: "Our
> special report casts doubt on the widespread view that inequality
> causes (or is associated with) a host of social problems."
>
> Not a hard quote to locate and anyway you don't need a link to deny
> that that's what the Economist said, to lie about what's in the
> article, or to repeat yourself over and over. And besides you're
> already "pretty sure" of what it says anyway.

I found it:

"Our special report casts doubt on the widespread view that inequality

causes (or is associated with) a host of social problems. Economics
focus finds little evidence that it stoked the financial crisis."

Here's the very next line:

"But recent research does suggest two other reasons why the rise in
inequality is a problem. One is that rich economies seem to provide
disproportionate and growing returns to the already wealthy. The other
is that inequality may literally be making people miserable by
increasing stress and the hormones it releases."

So clearly, when you claim "I disagree and provided sources that say

it's a meaningless measure, two of them actually, one, the Economist, a
self described "liberal" journal, and the other Cato from the right."

You are misunderstanding or deliberately distorting the conclusions of
the pieces you are citing.

HTH.

Cheers.

>
> Fuck off now, I'm done with you.



>
>
>