The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Thrillho]

... That was in response to Chuck's eloquent statement...

Amazingly, you've never been more wrong than you are right here.

[*In a Nutsack]

... That was in response to Chuck's eloquent statement...

Amazingly, you've never been more wrong than you are right here.

Not the first, nor will it be the last time, Thrill.

[De Jesus]

I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.  He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year.  Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi.  Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research.  Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about?  I know everyone hates George Soros.  He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life.  Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal).  He just gave away 30-odd billion.  Google is your friend.  Except it's not.  They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world.  You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.

Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity.  The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving.  The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.  

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

[Thrillho]

I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.

George Clooney? From what I've been reading and seeing, he's been up there with the Congress, trying to get everybody to go over there and solve that thing.

[De Jesus]

I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.

George Clooney? From what I've been reading and seeing, he's been up there with the Congress, trying to get everybody to go over there and solve that thing.

You been reading about all that?  You been seeing that?

Poor Matt Vasgersian.

[GNM]

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government. 

The Dems are going to socialize parts of the government?

Heaven forfend!

How exactly would they go about this? Are they going to somehow super-nationalize Federal agencies?

Every four years, half the country yells "SOCIALISM!" without actually knowing what it means.

Socializing the government is obviously misspeaking.  Socializing matters in which the government ought not get involved is a better turn of phrase.

I have to disagree with crying wolf about socialism as a whole, though.  The higher minimum wage, capping energy prices, bailout bills, nationalizing privately held assets in the mortgage market, raising the difference in percentage between tax brackets, supporting antiquated notions about labor unions, subsidizing ethanol development, becoming involved in the auto industry, and planning to get the government involved in the medical/insurance industry are all textbook examples.  These are all steps targeted specifically at lowering the Gini Index and redistributing wealth.  This is not the work of the Democrats, as several of the economic stimulus packages, backed by republicans, have sought to achieve the same goals.

The government is getting bigger.  It is a road that ends in socialism or worse.  As the middle class dies in this country, the newly minted have-nots will scream for "social justice."

Perhaps it is this notion of "social justice" and "compassion" that are misunderstood, not the notion of socialism.

If every one of those people at Obama's rally had spent the night making sandwiches for the homeless, then perhaps they could have created demonstrable change.  But that's not what people want.  People want the government to do it for them.  They would rather make those awful, exploitative, unfairly-advantaged successful people foot the bill then actually do it themselves.

As for the unwashed masses voting Republican: this sword cuts both ways.  Perhaps the Republicans have used social issues to solicit votes from the uniformed, but the Dems have been pushing "It's their fault they have more than you" since the Depression.  That is probably a far more dastardly and dangerous lie then "Gays will ruin the nuclear family."

[morpheus]

I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.  He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year.  Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi.  Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research.  Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about?  I know everyone hates George Soros.  He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life.  Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal).  He just gave away 30-odd billion.  Google is your friend.  Except it's not.  They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world.  You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.

Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity.  The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving.  The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.  

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

I think Yeti may have been referring to this study: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

The rich do tend to give to charity regardless of political stripes.  This is true, and there's no sense in arguing it.

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

[GNM]

I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.  He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year.  Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi.  Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research.  Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about?  I know everyone hates George Soros.  He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life.  Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal).  He just gave away 30-odd billion.  Google is your friend.  Except it's not.  They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world.  You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.

Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity.  The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving.  The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done. 

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

I think Yeti may have been referring to this study: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

The rich do tend to give to charity regardless of political stripes.  This is true, and there's no sense in arguing it.

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

Or how about:  "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."

[Philberto]

I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.  He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year.  Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi.  Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research.  Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about?  I know everyone hates George Soros.  He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life.  Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal).  He just gave away 30-odd billion.  Google is your friend.  Except it's not.  They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world.  You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.

Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity.  The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving.  The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.  

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

As Slaky said:

I'll take missing the point for ONE BILLION.

I said:

If they are so concerned about their dying poor friends, then why don't take their multi-million dollar salary and live on maybe $100,000-200,000 a year and donate the rest? If they are as much for the Democrats and for the common man as they claim, then they would have no problem doing that. Obviously, they have a problem with it.

If you chose to read, you could tell that I was saying that they should live like the rest of society if they are so concerned about the little guy. Yes, they may give money. Yes, they may head a charity. But how does someone who wants to help the poor justify his million dollar house? Or his 5 million sitting in his bank account? He can't and that was the point I made and you clearly missed. Is Warren Buffet now living in a modest $250,000 home and allocating himself to a modest middle America strategy? No. He can give that money because he can afford to. If I was a multi-millionaire I would give like crazy too.

And thanks for the personal attack. It was real sweet in a talk about politics and policies in general. I'll be sure to make sure you're on the Christmas list this year.

[Tonker]

We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday.  I'm just sayin'.

[Thrillho]

Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

Or how about:  "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."

I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.

Call it a hunch.

[morpheus]

Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

Or how about:  "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."

I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.

Call it a hunch.

It's just incomplete.  Fraud was part of the problem, but certainly not all of it.

[JD]

We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday.  I'm just sayin'.

Ever since the political talk cherry was popped, it's been a neverending booty call of finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations and self-righteousness.  NO GOOD HAS COME FROM IT.  Could you guys that insist on not talking about Cubs, Bears, Bulls, or Boobs please just start IM-ing amongst yourselves.  It would be much appreciated.

[GNM]

Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

Or how about:  "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."

I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.

Call it a hunch.

It's just incomplete.  Fraud was part of the problem, but certainly not all of it.

I'm afraid the government, lenders, borrowers, and insurers all seem share blame.  Even in hindsight, prevention seems as though it would have been difficult.

Good to see the feds launched a WaMu investigation.  I bet they never secure any indictments, but at least they are showing up.

[RV]

Is Warren Buffet now living in a modest $250,000 home and allocating himself to a modest middle America strategy? No. He can give that money because he can afford to. If I was a multi-millionaire I would give like crazy too.

He kind of is. Not trying to prove or disprove anyone's point in this argument, I just want to point out that Buffett doesn't fit the bill of the selfish wealthy folks that you're talking about.

Buffett is noted for his adherence to the value investing philosophy and for his personal frugality despite his immense wealth. His 2006 annual salary was about $100,000, which is small compared to senior executive remuneration in comparable companies. When Buffett spent $16.7 million of Berkshire's funds on a business jet in 1989, he jokingly named it "The Indefensible" because of his past criticisms of such purchases by other CEOs. He lives in the same house in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha that he bought in 1958 for $31,500 and today, it is valued at around $700,000. Buffett also is a notable philanthropist. In 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.