quote: Declaring the university system needs to get out from "under the thumb" of state government, Walker said he wants to give the Board of Regents more authority to contract for services and construct buildings without following state rules and processes that other state agencies must. His plan, if approved by the Legislature, would be coupled with a reduction in state aid of nearly 13%. He likened the proposal to the budget cuts that were paired with Act 10, the 2011 law that all but eliminated collective bargaining for most public workers.
Walker, who disclosed Tuesday he had set up a political committee for a potential presidential run, made his UW System announcement as he promoted a separate plan at the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce to provide $220 million in tax-backed bonds to help fund a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks.
Under Walker's plan, UW schools would continue to operate for two more years under a tuition freeze that has been in place since 2013. That means they would have to cut their programs to account for the dropped funding.
The UW System would have more predictability from year to year to plan for how much state revenue to expect with a block grant and increases tied to inflation, said Walker, who has one son enrolled at UW-Madison and another at Marquette University. Walker attended Marquette but did not earn a degree.
UW System officials welcomed the plan to give them more autonomy — something they have long sought — but warned the cuts would mean fundamental changes in how they operate the system's 26 campuses. "This is going to mean layoffs in all of my schools and colleges," said UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank, calling the reduction likely the largest cut in the system's history.
Walker will formally introduce his plan Feb. 3 as part of the state budget he wants the Republican-controlled Legislature to pass. The state faces a shortfall of $928 million through mid-2017, and lawmakers will spend the next several months working off Walker's plan to balance the budget.
The UW System received $1.18 billion in state taxpayer money for the current fiscal year — less than what it received in 2010-'11. Walker's plan would cut that amount for next year by $150 million, or 12.7%. The $150 million cut would continue for the second year of the budget as well. State tax money makes up about 19% of the UW System's budget, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Tuition, federal aid, grants, donations and other payments bring the system's total annual funding to more than $6 billion.
After 2017, the Board of Regents would have the authority to set whatever tuition it saw fit for UW System schools. However, between now and then lawmakers would be free to pass legislation that would extend the tuition freeze or limit the size of increases.
Walker's plan would eliminate state laws governing the UW System. One such law provides faculty with tenure, which protects them from dismissal. Another provides for shared governance, which allows professors and students to have a role in how universities are run. Such matters would be left for the Board of Regents to decide — a better arrangement, said Rep. John Nygren (R-Marinette), co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee. "Who do we want making those decisions? Legislators who have different perspectives or people in the day-to-day operation of the university?" Nygren said.
Follow up:
quote: "In the future, by not having the limitation of things like shared governance, they might be able to make savings just by asking faculty and staff to consider teaching one more class a semester," Walker told reporters at the Madison hotel.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Walker is "up to" privatizing as much education as he can, even state colleges.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Republicans are pretty much just taking the entire state and selling it off to the highest bribers piece by piece.
It works. Well I don't mean it works in the sense that it doesn't ruin the state a whole bunch and collapse important things like higher education. I mean it works in that it secures their powerbase for the future and buys them the next more gerrymandered election.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Selling Wisconsin.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not sure how much is privatizing, and how much is the old, small government trick of cutting budgets, "empowering" managers, and then making them do the dirty work. i.e. You give the managers power to fire employees or reduce salary, tell them they have less money, and then let them take the blame for actually firing people or cutting pay. It's been done to local government for years: the new twist is just that it's the university.
Hobbes Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Starve the Beast tactics. Its a part of the wider Republican strategy of defunding or working to sabotage government to make it incapable of doing its job, and then running against government as being "unable to accomplish anything that the Glorious Private Sector can do for cheaper/better/faster".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How true is all of this
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Completely. *grumble* Sam, you have no idea how much of a disaster Wisconsin state government is right now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like literally every separate element of that story is true, there's no individual component where, like, it's not as bad as it looks
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. All true. And that's even the optimistic projection of our debt, using the debt calculations that Walker made fun of when Doyle used them to show a surplus under his term, and which Walker said represented a disingenuous attempt to hide future liabilities. Walker's office started using Doyle's debt calculations almost immediately after taking office, because they look better.
*wry laugh*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So I guess they're also all hobknobbing up there alongside the dudes who come up with all the absolutely most disproven supply side econonomics stuff. like i think the literal laffer curve laffer might be up there these days.
are you guys trying to become a conservative economic policy dystopia faster than kansas or
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We are truly a model for ALEC policy at this point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is there a good article out there that articulates the situation in Wisconsin right now?
I'd love to read more.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the literal laffer curve laffer guy IS out there. OH MY GOD
"So what does it say about the current state of the G.O.P. that discussion of economic policy is now monopolized by people who have been wrong about everything, have learned nothing from the experience, and can’t even get their numbers straight?"
i want to lambast him for the hyperbole but at the same time we all read the ryan plan right
we all remember what happens every time the gop begrudgingly allows us to see their alternative economic plans
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I have a super-conservative cousin who hopes that Walker will be the next GOP presidential candidate. I really, really don't get the conservative mindset these days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I really, really don't get the conservative mindset these days.
Think of it this way.
The people running the show in american conservatism right now (and its recent ultra-creepy populist bents like the tea party) are a natural byproduct of the fact that the GOP has a perverse incentive and they benefit when government becomes dysfunctional. They can literally break government to prove that government doesn't work. They have responded to that incentive.
The end result is a party that fails at everything and prevents government, as much as they possibly can, from doing things that would work instead. They're even supposed to be the we're-good-at-war party, and they suck worse at war than we even really understand yet. Conservatives suck at war so bad that it's straight up embarrassing. If they suck at war, it doesn't bode well for how good they can manage things that are not in their generally hawkish purview.
I keep wanting to check my language here or try to back up and be more charitable but it's essentially true and I'm not finding much reason to doubt how I am describing this even in a concerted effort to analyze this from a nonprogressive standpoint. If you think I'm overstating this, all you have to do is grimly recall the two times that they barely stopped themselves from literally defaulting on the national debt. They have an incentive to ensure that government does not work, and it has become principally vital to the future of the party that they not let non-conservatives prove that government works when they run things, (this is why stopping Obamacare is so vital to their future) so they try to keep government from working.
Because the issue of "does this actually work in the real world?" is essentially irrelevant to these incentives, they have a hideous wonk gap and have seeded their entire structure so that the political kingmakers can demand obsequience to broken economic theory.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I understand intellectually why the Republican Party has come to work that way. I actually used to vote Republican very consistently, but my views have swung from moderately conservative to fairly liberal over the last several years because I'm just not buying it anymore. I just don't get why so many Americans still are.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
My conservative friend seems to also honestly believe that Obama shouldn't support measures he agrees with because then "It becomes a partisan issue and won't get done."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, Obama probably could get all of Fox News solidly on the side of a minimum living wage if he came out against it. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I honestly think he should try it. Switch to the GOP side on a few issues and let Senate Dems block it when it comes up for a vote.
Just to see what they do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
accuse him of flip-flopping
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't trust politicians. Kinda makes voting impossible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It really, really doesn't.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't trust politicians. Kinda makes voting impossible.
Supreme Court nominations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It really, really doesn't.
Not on initiatives & stuff...sure. Maybe even local folk, but I honestly believe that from about state Senate up our officials are either corrupt, incompetent or outnumbered.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is going to be snarky, but it's because I am frustrated at hearing that refrain so often-it's not personal: why are they outnumbered? All the corrupt money of which there is tons goes to buying votes. All you do by not voting is make the piece of sovereignty you own free, instead of needing a contribution to campaign with.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For one, I'm in California, so my vote for Pres doesn't either way. Either my vote literally doesn't count if I vote Republican, or if for Democrat, I can just stay home.
Would I even be able to vote in primaries as a Lib.? I thought only people registered to Dem or Rep can vote in their respective primaries?
Honestly the few times I tried to vote I got confused, bored & disinterested very quickly. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It varies from state to state, who can vote in which primaries. There are local and state elections as well where one voice carries more weight. It's not supposed to be easy, deciding how your sovereignty will go to choosing the way the country goes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Maybe I'm just lazy. Seriously. I try and care...but I just can't seem to pull it off.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In Michigan you don't register for any party. You just vote in whichever primary you want to but you can't vote in both.
I admit, as political as I am, I don't pay as much attention to local politics as I should.
But I can't imagine not voting. It'd take a pretty serious calamity to keep me from going to vote.
Because no matter how cynical I get, no matter how broken I think the system is, or corrupt, or oligarchal, it's still my vote, and if I give in to apathy, they've taken my last bit of civic power.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Maybe I'm just lazy. Seriously. I try and care...but I just can't seem to pull it off.
Well, we get the government we deserve.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So my (and those like me) by lack of voting...are what, ruining the country, and those who vote (even the people who just vote party lines) are what exactly?
If I just vote randomly am I "good" again. Or does merely showing up the pole the trick?
Not losing my stuff...more to come.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're reading a great deal into that statement that isn't there, SW. No one suggested ruining the country or particularly that party line voters are virtuous for voting the party line. The question that showing up at the polls does something is strange, since no one said anything like that either.
All that has been argued is that there is something important in voting-even in our flawed and corrupt system, yes-and that to complain that the choices are bad and dishonest when you consciously make a choice not to participate (which by the way is probably one of the biggest choices voters make that makes corruption so effective) makes no sense.
As for getting the government you deserve, you specifically well by making your own voice mute and therefore allowing your piece of the California voice to be bought and sold for free, by giving up just because it's 'boring', yes, even if your one vote wouldn't change anything you've still gotten the government you deserve.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I always vote, because the gov't WILL track who DOESN'T vote in case they complain about gov't policy so that they can shut your mouth. "Hey, you didn't vote, so why are you complaining about what we do?"
I know this because Jean Cretien (when he was Justice minister) wrote my mom a letter saying to this effect (She doesn't vote).
It was awesome, I wish we still had that letter.
(In case it isn't clear I 100% support this policy).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh sure...-I- deserve whatever I get...as I refrain...
But if all those people like me showed up and voted (only that) would it change anything?
We would have more of a right to complain sure, but would it ACTUALLY help?
If your choices are between a schitte sandwich and a schitte taco, picking one doesn't change the fact that you have poop in your mouth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course it would result in a change. Given that there is massive dissatisfaction with both parties, very low voter turnout, and that what turnout there is often powered by partisan voters...well, that's a lot of dissatisfied votes never brought to the table.
The corruption involved in politics is in big part funneled to political campaigns. Those campaigns can thus continue a two party dialogue in the contest for the voters who show up. And so there is a turd donkey or a turd elephant.
Of course if everyone showed up it would make a difference. The policy makers don't show up in Washington or Sacramento or Tallahhassee by magic-they have to get votes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But even with 100% at the polls you still end up with a turd.
Eventually more changes would come...like a third party or such...but said the only change being more people show up...
More people voting for a bad (purposely undermined with pork) doesn't make it a better idea.
Low voter turn out seems like a consequence not a causality.
How many congresspeople read the patriot act before signing it into law? I heard it was none.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
One of the biggest ways to change things is in the primaries - where turnout is shockingly low. (In my state, last time I checked, it was around ~30%) About a month and a half before every primary (and again before every election) I look up everyone who is running on the local FOX news site, copy their bios into a word document, and spend the next few weeks researching each person and marking who I'm going to vote for. Then when I send my absentee ballot in (I always vote Republican in the primaries, since almost all the state government ends up being Republican in the election) I have a very good idea of exactly who I'm voting for and why.
The thing is, there have been several times in the primaries where someone winning or losing comes down to a few votes - and this includes when my friend got nominated and later elected as State Treasurer. My vote absolutely does matter, and I think if everyone were to take a few hours every year to really look into who they were voting for and why, we could drastically change America's political landscape.
The biggest myth out there is that your vote doesn't matter, and that you can't do anything to change the status quo. And frankly, it's what's allowed our two party system to degrade to the level of corruption and incompetence we have today. Voting may be boring, but it's an absolutely vital duty of a citizen of a free country, if they want that country to remain free.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also...I don't complain about the government much anymore. 100% of my family's income is signed by Uncle Sam. Medical too. I'd rather my beloved wife wasn't disabled, or that disability didn't use monkeys for the vetting process, but all in all I have nothing to complain about.
Heck, because of Obama my private school loan is zero dollars a month...and (assuming no change) will be paid off by the government including intrest after twentyfive years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If everyone in America voted there would pretty much be no Republican Party and we could have universal health care in under five years. No jokes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess I'm just not seeing it...can someone please run the scenario?
For the sake of discussion, let's say an aggressive ad campaign gets poll numbers up to 85%. Same politicians, same props, but more people show up...
Go!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, first off I think if you got informed primary voters up to 85%, it would be highly unlikely that you *would* have the same politicians.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not informed anything...talking about us lazy bastards who would like to vote but have almost no faith in the system, and have very little gumption when it comes to politics.
I think that my choice to not make an uninformed vote is better than people who just guess or blindly follow party lines.
Is becoming an informed voter an even better choice? Yes, but when your holding on by the seat of your pants, you don't tend to raise your hand.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To clarify, I have my hands more than full of responsibility at the moment with my family situation. Not throwing a pity party, I'm just saying that my time is limited to the extent of to doing one chore means ten others go undone. Like while I write this, I'm not sorting laundry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I guess I'm just not seeing it...can someone please run the scenario?
If voting is now a compulsory practice in effect and substantial blocks to voting availability for limited income and innercity populations are removed and we effectively make it so that people under the age of 35 and across all socioeconomic lines have the same voting representation as people over the age of 65, liberal candidates now win overwhelmingly across most of the country. The GOP becomes a marginal and regional party at best, and probably by most people's estimates dissolves in a relatively short timeframe.
The only demographic that really floats american conservatism is white people born in the 1940's and earlier. As time goes on, the country is experiencing a massive shift to liberal ideology. But people vote far less reliably or often when they are young. Demographics that solidly vote Democratic Party are also logistically and institutionally prevented from voting, often times through concerted efforts to prevent as many of them from voting as possible (see: voter ID laws, innercity poll station availability management, etc).
If every citizen voted in the next election, the democrats would have a substantial majority in both houses of congress, most governorships. If gerrymandering were also abolished to remove unrepresentative district safety and vote marginalization in national and state elections, democratic gains in the house would be even more substantial and the conservatives would lose most state legislatures immediately.
In fact most demographic data today suggests we have reached a point where even if you kept the current voting trends but just removed gerrymandering, the democrats would have a majority in the house.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Interesting. I did not know that. Thank you for sharing that, makes perfect sense to me. Serious question does it apply to me personally? Is California under populated with liberal votes which I'm not even sure I qualify under entirely?
How important is it that -I- vote?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You should not vote.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Always the bright point of my day Tom. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure why voluntarily giving up your stake in the system without a struggle is better than at least using it to have some influence that means you have, well, some influence as well as some responsibility. In fact I'm sure it's not, though that is only my opinion. I'll also note that you're sending some mixed signals here. If it is laziness (your own repeated characterization) that keeps you from the polls, how can you then claim it's a stance worth defending because participating is worse? I mean, sometimes you're saying you don't participate because you're lazy or it's boring and other times it's because it's hopeless and meaningless anyway. I think to be authentic you would have to pick one. Note also I'm not only talking about the present, which is very hectic and busy for you, but also the past, which according to you has been the same in terms of voting.
Others have said it, but I don't understand at all how you can suggest that vastly increasing the pool of voters would somehow result in the same situation. I mean, do all of those people who don't vote believe similar things as to the small minority that do vote? Why would that be? you clearly don't share beliefs with those who vote right now-otherwise you would be voting, if you were of like minds, wouldn't you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for basing your vote on how things in your particular district or state will go, I understand the impulse, but consider this: politicians and campaigns make decisions on how to handle a given district, what courses to take and promises to make, on the basis of things like past voting, polling data, surveys, registered voter numbers, etc.
So yes, if you vote or not may not have an impact in your district depending on if you're a fish out of water or one more animal in the herd. But it can have an impact on how much of a fight politicians and campaigners have to put up to secure your district. Yes, this impact will be very small in the grand scheme of things but we're a nation of hundreds of millions. Or as others have noted, it may not be so small at all if you're down on the local level.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh sure...-I- deserve whatever I get...as I refrain...
But if all those people like me showed up and voted (only that) would it change anything?
We would have more of a right to complain sure, but would it ACTUALLY help?
If your choices are between a schitte sandwich and a schitte taco, picking one doesn't change the fact that you have poop in your mouth.
If more people were actually informed and voted, of course things would change for the better.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Originally posted by Rakeesh " I'm not sure why voluntarily giving up your stake in the system without a struggle is better than at least using it to have some influence that means you have, well, some influence as well as some responsibility."
So you would rather have more people vote, even if they were uninformed, than less, but better informed voters?
[ February 25, 2015, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. I said informed. It is the duty of citizens in a democracy to be informed. Government by the people, after all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sorry, I'll use a quote to clarify.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No. I said informed. It is the duty of citizens in a democracy to be informed. Government by the people, after all.
Oh, I agree that those exercising the rights of a citizen is obligated to be informed. Since I am not, I do not inflict my ignorance on others.
As to Rakeesh's question...it totally can be both, laziness & mistrust. I don't kno why those two are mutually exclusive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are a citizen - and enjoy the rights of citizenship - whether you do your civic duty or not. All you are arguing here is whether it is better to do your duty badly or not at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
SW, I'm not sure if being an informed voter is quite the herculean task you make it out to be. The process I described for primary elections earlier - going through and researching every candidate and major issue on the local, state, and national level - takes maybe 20 hours every year. And it gets easier every year, once you get a better understanding of various political offices and their respective duties and responsibilities. If you wanted just a cursory understanding of the election, there are tons of websites willing to summarize all that for you, and you could get enough information to make your decision in 2 or 3 hours. It's not like you have to go to political rallies or follow the news every day (though you should), thanks to the internet everything you need to be a reasonably informed voter is right there at your fingertips.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well...one of them anyway. I fulfill the vast majority of my duties.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That doesn't follow from my statement. My statement suggests both are bad-voluntarily deciding not to vote out of apathy, laziness, cynicism, what have you; and voting on a straight party line, though poorly informed, because you believe it's the best choice. Pointing out that both of two choices are bad isn't a suggestion that one should be picked, since they aren't the only choices at all, actually.
Anyway, I generally will think that choosing what you think will make a better world is better than giving up without a fight because it's too hard or won't work, even if the choice you make doesn't make the world better. In moral terms, anyway. In practical terms it's a different question.
I don't know why you're continuing to assert this false dichotomy. Who has suggested 'we need lots and lots more uninformed voters?' No one I have seen. I'll also note that there are questions about your position raised by myself and others that you haven't addressed (this is just a reminder, not an attack; you're busy as you've said) such as: why should we think that the majority of citizens, who don't vote, hold matching beliefs and would vote in matching ways to the small minority of citizens who do vote, and would thus lead to the same results we currently see?
It doesn't make sense. Anyone can rail against the system all they like, and holy hell with lots of good reason, but there is still one fundamental principle and truth of our system and that is that the representatives, presidents, sometimes judges, etc., that we elect are put into power ultimately by votes won in free public elections. Therefore however far removed, and however small, it is still the people which decide the outcome. Trouble is we've generally allowed ourselves to be duped-such as the majority of citizens who don't show up to the polls because the system is corrupt, leaving it entirely in the hands of those voters who disagree.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:[As to Rakeesh's question...it totally can be both, laziness & mistrust. I don't kno why those two are mutually exclusive.
I was referring to the question of whether it was laziness/cynicism that prevented you from voting, or being too busy. Because if you're so busy you can't make the time every couple of years to investigate some issues and politicians and vote, what does it matter whether or not the system is so bad there's no point? Likewise in reverse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Well...one of them anyway. I fulfill the vast majority of my duties.
What other duties/responsibilities does an American citizen have with respect to helping to make decisions that the country they reside in whose officials will speak in their name? And please don't say paying taxes. In many cases you don't have a choice about that (sales taxes, income taxes). Raising and supporting a family doesn't exactly count either, since people generally don't say 'I am a good father/mother because it's my duty as an American!'. Obeying laws, well see the question of being compelled to do that as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jury duty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
True, but also see compulsory.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Crap, now I'm down to pays taxes & follows laws.
Maybe I should reconsider how patriotic I believe myself to be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. But you could do it badly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say this to anyone, so please don't take it as a personal attack, but in what ways are paying taxes and obeying laws patriotic qualities? Or if that was a joke, what activities or beliefs are patriotic? Just some of the big ones, I mean.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
All I I mean is that either I should reclassify myself or vote.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Forums like SA and reddit make it easy to research politics as well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Also...I don't complain about the government much anymore. 100% of my family's income is signed by Uncle Sam. Medical too. I'd rather my beloved wife wasn't disabled, or that disability didn't use monkeys for the vetting process, but all in all I have nothing to complain about.
Heck, because of Obama my private school loan is zero dollars a month...and (assuming no change) will be paid off by the government including intrest after twentyfive years.
Careful with that.
I'm pretty sure you have to claim the interest written off as income at the end of your 25 year term, though I'm hoping them come up with a fix for that.
I think I'm on the 25 year plan as well at the moment, and currently pay $0 (on my public loans), but that'll go up to around $150 soon, where it's likely to stay for some time. At the end of my loan term, my loan, through interest, will have jumped from it's original roughly $30,000 to well over $100,000 thanks to 25 years of interest. My understanding is that I have to pay taxes on every dollar forgiven as if it were income. Depending on what the tax brackets are at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to make me pay a $30,000 tax bill...or exactly what I originally borrowed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'll make y'all a deal...I'll vote this year with y'all's help...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hmmm...devil's in the deets...yeesh!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stone Wolf is an excellent example for why proportional representation and ranked voting need to be enacted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because I should only get 1/10 of a vote?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Because I should only get 1/10 of a vote?
I'm struggling to see how you interpreted his post like this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ranked voting??
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That was a joke DB...guess I shoulda used a smiley.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also...I had a double post....I deleted it...that might have ruined Lyr's joke.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't think it did
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ranked voting??
So you can vote for lesser-known longshots without the risk of your vote being thrown away.
It's probably the best chance a third party would ever have in America.
Other than proportional representation.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Also...I had a double post....I deleted it...that might have ruined Lyr's joke.
I don't think he was joking...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm getting that same feeling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stone Wolf is an excellent example for why proportional representation and ranked voting need to be enacted.
Would you please expand on this?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Originally posted by Rakeesh
I don't know why you're continuing to assert this false dichotomy. Who has suggested 'we need lots and lots more uninformed voters?' No one I have seen.
You don't think that people study up, make themselves into informed citizens and then choose not to vote do you? The message of "Rock the Vote" & "Vote or Die" as well as a common attitude here is "Everyone should vote!" NOT "Everyone should be an informed voter!" (cept boots...I think that is her message...and it works!)
quote:... why should we think that the majority of citizens, who don't vote, hold matching beliefs and would vote in matching ways to the small minority of citizens who do vote, and would thus lead to the same results we currently see?
Part of that was ignorance on my part, that Samp helped clear up. But part of that sentiment stems from a fundamental unhappiness with the system. That only having two choices, if both are bad, is silly and frustrating. Basically, my presidential vote is meaningless! A) I vote along with California...result...55 electoral votes to Dem B) I vote against California for Rep...result...same C) I vote Lib...result...same D) I stay home...result...same.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ranked voting??
So you can vote for lesser-known longshots without the risk of your vote being thrown away.
It's probably the best chance a third party would ever have in America.
Other than proportional representation.
oh, ok. instant runoff voting
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I find your nihilism unimpressive Rock Dawg. I feel like, that considering a modern developed country has a mostly educated populace that you'll mostly have a voting population of mostly informed voters. (If 100% of the population votes, right now only 30% votes? So you have your most motivated voting, not necessarily your most informed)
People died to get you that right, people are actively striving to deny that right, this very moment for millions of Americans and your just stating flatout that voting would be too much effort to satisfy an arbitrary standard that only YOU placed on yourself, that you be "sufficiently informed".
Its EASY to be informed, for local elections just READ THEIR WEBSITE, what ISSUES do they support, do they mostly match your issues? And work you're way up until national Senate, Congressional, and Presidential elections in which case just go on goddamn reddit; or take those online ideology tests*.
Like I dunno man, what if tomorrow some Republican politician decided that your vote was too dangerous because they think your a hipster democratic leaning yuppie and decides to change the law a little so your name is invalidated from the voter rolls? That should anger you enough to vote every election.
*Though they can be inaccurate, my "first choice" are the ultranationalist French separatist party for some strange reason that my friend is convinced is because I support extremely odd non-mainstream issues like increased immigration which somehow outweighs my disgust for Quebec leaving Canada.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Seems like you are a little late to the discussion for indignation.
Also, I'm a white male land owner...I'm pretty sure that the people who died to secure voter rights didn't have me in mind, being the second most protected group behind -wealthy- white male land owners.
I said I would vote...with the help of the Rack.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seems like you are a little late to the discussion for indignation.
You realize you're posting in a thread he started, right? And that he's been participating in it this entire time?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thread drift is real man
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Something to consider, since as a newcomer I can see how the entire slate of choices could be daunting. Though I will say that as others have said becoming informed isn't difficult at all, given the lengths of time involved, but the responsibility is and should be daunting: just pick a few candidates and issues in your next local or state election. You don't have to investigate all of them. Just a small handful-you can get a feel for things that way, and you don't have to even enter anything for other races. After all, your voice wasn't beinf heard in them anyway-what's an extra term or two?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: After all, your voice wasn't beinf heard in them anyway-what's an extra term or two?
Sarcasm?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, and thanks for checking. It was a serious statement that the loss in an extra term or two of your voice not being heard in some races isn't that much in the context of never having been heard before. And there is value in acclimating yourself to voting and learning about the choices to your satisfaction before jumping all the way in.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Boy, am I glad I didn't take a job at the University of Wisconsin 7 years ago!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Three birds with one stone: Cutting programs that help people out of poverty, cutting down on the dangerous (and less easily led) "intellectual elite", and getting rid of bastions of progressive voters.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Boy, am I glad I didn't take a job at the University of Wisconsin 7 years ago!
In that time, you would have had one 2% raise, seen the cost of living go up 14%, been required to take six weeks off without pay, and had your contract changed without your consent to double the cost of your healthcare and halve your pension.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
meh who needs 'higher education' anyway, not us common sense lipstick on pigs sorts
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, and thanks for checking. It was a serious statement that the loss in an extra term or two of your voice not being heard in some races isn't that much in the context of never having been heard before. And there is value in acclimating yourself to voting and learning about the choices to your satisfaction before jumping all the way in.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Maybe I'm just lazy. Seriously. I try and care...but I just can't seem to pull it off.
It shows.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: meh who needs 'higher education' anyway, not us common sense lipstick on pigs sorts
You know, whatever good he has to say in his article, the point implied by his article - that his story of "joined the military from a hick town and somehow managed to get my life turned around to become a Bo-Na-Fied college graduate, gosh almighty" is somehow the exception to the rule rather than, you know, a common result and indeed even the reason most people enlist - is extremely grating.
Also, the notion that the military is this giant, monolithic bloc that votes entirely Republican rather than leaning to the right a few percentage points more than the general population, or that that this lean can be more or less entirely explained by the fact that it's 85.4% male and the disproportion number of it's members who come from rural areas, is annoying.
I realize I'm probably way too sensitive to that issue, but I get a little annoyed when I meet people back home who learned I was in the military/learn that I'm a veteran and automatically feel comfortable sharing whatever homophobic or right wing crap because they're just sure I share their values, or when liberals I meet comment on just how advanced and articulate and thoughtful I seem to be considering my background like one would talk to a special needs kid (and yes, I realize they mean well and take it as the compliment it is and am not a dick about it)... I feel like there's this general ignorance of the socioeconomic, cultural, racial and political mixing pot the actual military is. And I feel like this guy using his military experience to highlight just how gosh darn conservative he was is just playing off that stereotype while reinforcing it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Maybe I'm just lazy. Seriously. I try and care...but I just can't seem to pull it off.
It shows.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The effort, or the failure?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stone Wolf is an excellent example for why proportional representation and ranked voting need to be enacted.
Would you please expand on this?
A winner take all system, especially one like ours so muddled with gerrymandering, is practically designed to drive down turnout. Few districts are genuinely contested, so a large number of people don't think their vote matters, because in reality, it really doesn't. In fact, in most districts, your vote is designed not to matter.
With proportional representation, everyone's vote matters. The electorate is proportional represented in congress. Did you know that in the last two elections, more people voted for democrats in the House than republicans? For four years, we will have a congress that does NOT reflect the will of the people. Proportional voting ensures you will never feel like your vote doesn't count, because it can't be diluted via cartography
Ranked voting let's you pick more than one candidate. So you can vote for the longshot, and when he loses, your vote goes to your second choice. This encourages people not to vote defensively, which all too often we feel compelled to do, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Both would be worthwhile changes here
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks...convincing argument.
What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Ha ha that sure is a funny joke Lyrhawn
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is that misguided anger? Or whaa?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is that misguided anger? Or whaa?
No, you made a joke about how you only get 1/10th vote or whatever and then when I asked for an explanation you made it out like you were just responding to Lyrhawn's joke that I'm too dense to understand. Lyrhawn said pretty much exactly what I thought he meant, but I'm still just as baffled by your response to his "joke."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm happy to explain the joke...but I think I hit the nail the head man.
Ranked voting...ranked by what? Knowledge of the issues...result...I get less votes. Self deprecation.
You are badly misreading the dynamic between Lyr & myself who are friends from fantasy football, a Detroit reading charity & Facebook.
Have you appointed yourself my keeper or something?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stone Wolf is an excellent example for why proportional representation and ranked voting need to be enacted.
Would you please expand on this?
A winner take all system, especially one like ours so muddled with gerrymandering, is practically designed to drive down turnout. Few districts are genuinely contested, so a large number of people don't think their vote matters, because in reality, it really doesn't. In fact, in most districts, your vote is designed not to matter.
With proportional representation, everyone's vote matters. The electorate is proportional represented in congress. Did you know that in the last two elections, more people voted for democrats in the House than republicans? For four years, we will have a congress that does NOT reflect the will of the people. Proportional voting ensures you will never feel like your vote doesn't count, because it can't be diluted via cartography
Ranked voting let's you pick more than one candidate. So you can vote for the longshot, and when he loses, your vote goes to your second choice. This encourages people not to vote defensively, which all too often we feel compelled to do, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Both would be worthwhile changes here
Unless you *do* want the dude to specifically represent your riding/district (which doesn't usually work in P-R), so there's also: Single Transferable Vote which maintains ridings but also makes it more democratic ala P-R (I think its pretty much Improved Ranked Voting).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I heard gorilla had a monkey on the side! Also...very informative.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The effort, or the failure?
Yes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Thanks...convincing argument.
What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
A constitutional convention would be required. And that has never been done (since 1787 anyway).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The effort, or the failure?
Yes.
If even one of my staunchest critics can recognize my efforts than I must be doing something.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
A constitutional convention would be required. And that has never been done (since 1787 anyway).
So...don't hold my breath. Our laws do have the ability tho...so what would it take to get a constitutional convention going? Maybe two or three...give gays the right to marry & untangle the 2nd so that we end up with intelligent gun laws nationwide?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The effort, or the failure?
Yes.
If even one of my staunchest critics can recognize my efforts than I must be doing something.
:whoosh:
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
A constitutional convention would be required. And that has never been done (since 1787 anyway).
So...don't hold my breath. Our laws do have the ability tho...so what would it take to get a constitutional convention going? Maybe two or three...give gays the right to marry & untangle the 2nd so that we end up with intelligent gun laws nationwide?
Why didn't you study government in high school? You should really know how this works.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I will admit to some retroactive annoyance in past arguments, given that those sorts of questions are being asked now. But seriously, aside from scoring points is there a purpose to raking Stone_Wolf over the coals now for asking important questions? Yes, he should've known most of this stuff already, but he didn't and so he's asking now.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Thanks...convincing argument.
What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
A constitutional convention would be required. And that has never been done (since 1787 anyway).
Why would the non-convention amendment process not work? It's been done 17 times. (Counting the first ten as one "time.")
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The plot thickens!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Thanks...convincing argument.
What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
A constitutional convention would be required. And that has never been done (since 1787 anyway).
Why would the non-convention amendment process not work? It's been done 17 times. (Counting the first ten as one "time.")
Legally, yes, that's possible. Practically speaking though, congress is chock full of people who would be voting themselves out of a job. The constitutional convention can be called by the state legislatures, bypassing congress. That is the only way I see this ever happening.
ETA: of course, it's all in the wording. Article 5 says that the state legislatures must still request a convention to be approved by congress- so congress still has some say, but it would be very hard for them to say no at that point.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Why didn't you study government in high school? You should really know how this works.
I got straight As in civics...two decades ago. I have had a general rule to stay away from politics. Being hot headed as I am such a volatile subject, not mention a father in law from Brooklyn who is...uh hum...the kind of tea party "conservative" who posts (almost) racest stuff about Obama on Facebook daily. Here are just a few of his posts from today.
quote: Congressional Republicans have no principles, no strategy and no guts...
FCC to regulate Israel: Obama seeks to silence "Net and Yahoo."
The Whitehouse now calls "Illegal Aliens" Americans in waiting. Your taxes.
The radical left wing of the Democrat Party wants a Police State.
I'm just saying coupled with a deep mistrust of the system even you might see why I have stayed away from the subject.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I bet you dollars to crullers that the almost racist stuff is just flat nasty racist
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*wince* ...Man...I gotta make thanksgiving work so if it is I try not to see it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rand Paul and Scott Walker were the two top straw poll winners for the CPAC this year
great party you guys got there
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Everything I've heard Scott walker quoted in in the last month makes him sound like ten pounds of stupid in five pound crazy bag.
Every time I hear him attack people with formal education like his "I don't think you need a PhD to be president" and then declare that Reagans best foreign policy decision was firing US air traffic controllers, it convinces me more than ever that having a PhD actually should be required.
Or maybe just the same level of common sense that God gave a jar of sand
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [qb] Why didn't you study government in high school? You should really know how this works.
I got straight As in civics...two decades ago. I have had a general rule to stay away from politics. Being hot headed as I am such a volatile subject, not mention a father in law from Brooklyn who is...uh hum...the kind of tea party "conservative" who posts (almost) racest stuff about Obama on Facebook daily. Here are just a few of his posts from today.
You have not applied that general rule to your postings here. It must be a *very* general rule. And congratulations on your As in civics. I don't remember my grades, but I do remember how the constitution is amended. I guess your priorities were different.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look, I admit that hearing of Stone_Wolf's attitude towards voting and his knowledge of how American government works did chap my ass in light of past discussions. I don't think I've kept that quiet, and in any event I don't think it would surprise him that I felt that way anyway.
All of that said, though, I am still curious as to what the point of your needling is, Orincoro. He did cop openly to ignorance and past laziness and indifference on these topics. Should he qualify every post like that until some time in the future, or what?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I appreciate your trying to get him to stop dude, but don't let it concern you. Orincoro has plenty of reasons to needle me, habit if nothing else. And whatever else the quality of my priorities, they got me my wife and our two precious children, so as far as I'm concerned -there- is an aspect of my life on which I have no regrets.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not only about stopping him from hectoring, I am actually curious, is all. And critical obviously, but curious as well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The simple solution to my mind is that his snark has a hair trigger & unlike yourself & Samp, his disdain isn't as conditional or apropo. But that would only be a guess.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, speaking fairly and with candor about my own feelings, if we hadn't had our little detente, I would probably have heard your earlier statements about politics and voting with a great deal more scorn and frustration than I ended up doing. But I don't think Orincoro was a part of that whole kerfluffle, so perhaps his snark isn't as hair trigger but comes from a different context.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's within the realm of possibility that he has a purpose or at least a good explanation. But equal to greater odds on no good reason at all. No problem in asking in my book, but forgive me if I don't hold my breath on anything earth shattering.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm curious, the "detente" (had to look it up) you mentioned...other than a group apology that went uncommented on, you & I and Orin & myself have had no formal words of truce that I can recall. You just stopped messing with me when I put effort at transparency (with thanks) whereas he didn't.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I appreciate your trying to get him to stop dude, but don't let it concern you. Orincoro has plenty of reasons to needle me, habit if nothing else. And whatever else the quality of my priorities, they got me my wife and our two precious children, so as far as I'm concerned -there- is an aspect of my life on which I have no regrets.
Well, ok then.
quote:The simple solution to my mind is that his snark has a hair trigger & unlike yourself & Samp, his disdain isn't as conditional or apropo. But that would only be a guess.
I don't disdain you. I find your self professed apathy to be insulting to those who have engaged you in discussion here.
quote: It's within the realm of possibility that he has a purpose or at least a good explanation. But equal to greater odds on no good reason at all. No problem in asking in my book, but forgive me if I don't hold my breath on anything earth shattering.
Your flippant hypocrisy in speaking this way about me is an example of what I find irritating about you. You combine smugness with apathy. It's unflattering.
And you know exactly what response you'll get for talking this way. As with all your recent talk about how much you're "trying," it's all wrapped in aggression and defensiveness that proves you're not really trying. You're lazy, and you are contemptible when you behave this way. I think you probably only do this because you don't know how else to behave. That's understandable, I guess. We're not all able to reconcile who we'd like to be, with who we really are.
quote:I'm curious, the "detente" (had to look it up) you mentioned...other than a group apology that went uncommented on, you & I and Orin & myself have had no formal words of truce that I can recall. You just stopped messing with me when I put effort at transparency (with thanks) whereas he didn't.
Some statement you made about yourself, which I didn't see, and which marked no detectable change in your outlook or behavior, is reason enough for me not to "mess" with you? And by that, I presume you mean to act towards you in a way you don't appreciate? You don't seem to care what others might appreciate from you. You've been quite explicit in that regard. I should treat you with kid gloves because you admit you're ignorant, despite continuing to be insufferable about that ignorance. No, I don't think so.
[ March 03, 2015, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Those are not my expectations from you. You seem to think I -really- care what you think...that was Rakeesh who was curious.
Personally if you turned over a new leaf, in regards to myself, it wouldn't change much...I've answered your questions as best I can as honestly as I can. I know that, so I haven't bothered to defend myself from you.
Hey, maybe you can't see my efforts...perception determines reality.
*shrug*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"perception determines reality."
See, this is why you're a clown. Fatuous bloviations and a meek *shrug*, while you explain to me why you don't care what I think, and you talk about me turning over a new leaf as if you weren't posting two weeks ago about punching people in the face- naturally padded with language about how you were "working on" not being that way. Get over yourself, you big fat phoney.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's way more fun to be on the other side of this! Had to look up "fatuous blovations."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Had to look up "fatuous blovations."
If you started following politics you would see both words far more often. (while you're at it you should look up 'bloviation' too. You're missing a syllable there)
Anyway, you've done this several times: complaining about people using relatively common polysyllabic words because you're inconvenienced into having to look them up. There are several free, easy to use dictionary apps out there. It takes maybe 3 seconds to type the word in (or less because it guesses the word in a drop down menu) and a second or two to read the definition. It's not like you have to actually search for it in the dictionary any more.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wasn't complaining...just noting I didn't kno the words meaning.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Anyway, you've done this several times: complaining about people using relatively common polysyllabic words because you're inconvenienced into having to look them up.
Aw shucks mable, us reglur folks don't know them fancy city words, isn't that just petunias?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You might consider a better hobby dude...I can't imagine this being very fulfilling.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
A few weeks ago I saw a man degrading a homeless man by lecturing him on how it's his fault for being in the position he's in, how easy it is to get a job at a fast food restaurant, how he should be ashamed of himself, etc. Orincoro strikes me as the kind of guy who would do that.
I'm not comparing SW to a homeless man, just that Orincoro comes off at the kind of guy who takes pleasure in degrading those he deems below him.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: A few weeks ago I saw a man degrading a homeless man by lecturing him on how it's his fault for being in the position he's in, how easy it is to get a job at a fast food restaurant, how he should be ashamed of himself, etc. Orincoro strikes me as the kind of guy who would do that.
I'm not comparing SW to a homeless man, just that Orincoro comes off at the kind of guy who takes pleasure in degrading those he deems below him.
I'll let him defend himself here, but that's a pretty strong accusation to make considering the lack of evidence for it. Nor do I think it really applies here - I doubt Orincoro would go out of his way to stress that he and Stone Wolf have the same basic education in how the government works (and indeed are both college educated, intelligent people) if he meant to establish that SW is "beneath him" as you put it. If anything, it was to establish that as his equal (educationally, culturally) ignorance is a pretty shoddy excuse for laziness.
Edit for clarity: To the extent that I would "take sides" on this issue, in 6 years of posting here I don't think Orincoro has ever belittled, degraded, or spoken down to me once. Even when I have said things or expressed opinions contemptible enough to deserve that level of scorn, he's been very respectful and patient with his responses to me - far more so than I have been to him. Stone Wolf, OTOH, has belittled, degraded, or spoken down to me several times in the *past month*. So I would strongly recommend rereading what's been said here in that context and consider if Orincoro is actually taking pleasure in degrading him, or merely calling him out for what he perceives as dishonesty.
[ March 03, 2015, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i almost lost it at this whole thread but dogbreath's last post is helping me keep my marbles intact
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can you explain further Samp, I'm afraid I'm not following.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You kno the part that bugs me isn't Orin's naked aggression...that I've become numb to. No, it's DogBreath...trying to interject (and stir up shit?) between me and Lyr...and when I call him out on it...nada. Until he interjects again...to point out how rough I was on him. That's exactly what he accused me of.
If the things Orin were saying even made sense...beyond being couched as offensively as possible, I would address them. Somehow I've -explicitly- stated my disregard for other's views? It all reads like...some wack job going off in an internet discussion...wait a sec...
As to me being a big fat phoney...I am big, and fat, but I am trying...to listen and learn and improve myself, and if Rakeesh & Gala are the only ones who can see it than at least that's something. Of course the real important part is I kno.
To Orin: I'm not sure if I have the words to communicate my intent to you. I've been posting here a long while, and I am not interested in retaining the roles we cast for each other over the years. If you can not see that I'm putting forth effort here can you at least attempt to be civil or barring that just leave me be?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
SW, that post is way out of line.
Dogbreath, Orincoro's posts just come off more as bullying than constructive criticism. This:
quote: Why didn't you study government in high school? You should really know how this works.
quote: Your flippant hypocrisy in speaking this way about me is an example of what I find irritating about you. You combine smugness with apathy. It's unflattering.
And you know exactly what response you'll get for talking this way. As with all your recent talk about how much you're "trying," it's all wrapped in aggression and defensiveness that proves you're not really trying. You're lazy, and you are contemptible when you behave this way. I think you probably only do this because you don't know how else to behave. That's understandable, I guess. We're not all able to reconcile who we'd like to be, with who we really are.
Those last three sentences aren't merely about calling him out on what he perceives as dishonesty.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
GaalDornick: Absolutely, and you'll notice I'm not defending the insults he's using or the condescension. But my "merely" in this case was used to describe his motive, not his words.
My point is I find it extremely hard to jump from "Orincoro is being kind of a dick with how he's arguing with Stone Wolf" to "Orincoro is the kind of guy who would berate a homeless man for being in his condition." That's a drastic assumption about behavior, morality, and lack of empathy that seems highly incongruous with what I know of the man, and in this situation is completely unwarranted. It also implies a difference in power, station, and social status (the kind that makes a homeless man more or less unable to defend himself in this situation) that simply isn't there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: A few weeks ago I saw a man degrading a homeless man by lecturing him on how it's his fault for being in the position he's in, how easy it is to get a job at a fast food restaurant, how he should be ashamed of himself, etc. Orincoro strikes me as the kind of guy who would do that.
Hah. No. You've clearly never read anything I've written here very carefully.
And with homeless people, my general play is to get a doggy bag from restaurants and give it to the first person who asks me for money. What else would actually help?
quote: I've been posting here a long while, and I am not interested in retaining the roles we cast for each other over the years. If you can not see that I'm putting forth effort here can you at least attempt to be civil or barring that just leave me be?
I cannot see you putting forth effort. You remain lazy, arrogant, manipulative, and small minded. Now you have added false modesty to your repertoire. But it's just more of the same.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And with homeless people, my general play is to get a doggy bag from restaurants and give it to the first person who asks me for money. What else would actually help?
For a little while, when I was living in Toronto, a couple nights a week I would make two plates of food in the evening, wrap them in tinfoil, and walk around Church and Gerrard asking people if they wanted to eat supper with me. I didn't specifically target homeless mind you, but they were almost always the only ones willing. As we ate they would always talk to me - sometimes they were crazy and would talk about aliens and government conspiracies and things implanted in their heads, sometimes they would spin a bullshit yarn about how they used to know a ton of famous people and what actresses they had slept with and why they were temporarily down on their luck, sometimes they would just talk. I never asked questions, just listened. It was nice. I was fairly lonely at the time, and most of them were too, so I think we connected pretty well.
Then again, I was a skinny longhaired hippie kid, and had been uncomfortably close to being homeless myself on several occasions. I probably didn't seem imposing or threatening. I haven't done this in many years... I wonder if I would have the same reaction, or get uncomfortable silence, or just get told to **** off. I don't really know. There aren't any homeless people living outside my house (like there were outside the building I lived in) so I feel like it would kind of be forced and awkward anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, you're bigger hearted than me. I certainly wouldn't waste my breath on lecturing somebody like that, anyway. As if it would help; as if I understand what somebody like that feels and will respond to. I can't imagine it, and I suspect like most people, I prefer to avoid thinking about it, much to our shame, I'm afraid.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: GaalDornick: Absolutely, and you'll notice I'm not defending the insults he's using or the condescension. But my "merely" in this case was used to describe his motive, not his words.
This doesn't make sense. Even though his words, which is the only thing we have to go on here, indicated he was doing more than calling out SW's dishonesty, he actually wasn't because of his motive?
quote: That's a drastic assumption about behavior, morality, and lack of empathy that seems highly incongruous with what I know of the man, and in this situation is completely unwarranted. It also implies a difference in power, station, and social status (the kind that makes a homeless man more or less unable to defend himself in this situation) that simply isn't there
No. His last three sentences I referenced did show his lack of empathy. He indicated he was aware there are certain things people may not be able to or know how to change about themselves yet disparaged him for it anyways. That's cruel.
I specifically said I wasn't referring to a difference in social status when I clarified I wasn't comparing SW to the homeless man, just Orincoro to the cruelty of the man insulting him instead of empathizing. Regardless, I'd bet good money that Orincoro does see himself as above, so to speak, SW. The difference in power or social status is irrelevant here, it's an anonymous forum, all we have here is our own intellect, knowledge, and writing ability.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Orincoro: You know that sort of disparaging of a poster is not OK. Please refrain from doing it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The homeless man bit was absurd, Gaal. You can certainly disapprove as much as you like, and I wouldn't fault you for having that opinion. But the lecturing the homeless man, I'm just imagining that actually happening and it's ridiculous. It's Dickensian, really, that kind of lecturing to the poor in that I could see pre-redemption Scrooge doing it.
I do get where Orincoro's hostility comes from. I remember discussions in the past about current events where Stone_Wolf would insist on having a position and becoming quite hostile pretty quickly of basic challenges were made and incredulity that he hadn't considered them was expressed. That's just my memory, obviously I'm not suggesting Stone_Wolf accept that remembering as gospel.
But fast forward to this discussion, and I can see how Orincoro might be deeply skeptical and unfriendly. As an American, it actually is offensive to me when someone professes the sort of ignorance and apathy that Stone_Wolf did about voting. I didn't go into it, and don't wish to further now, because he was asking questions, and what's the point of taxing someone after the fact like that?
But with a little less good faith-like, say, if someone had been lashed out at in really personal terms, such as Dogbreath; or perhaps remembering political discussions as Orincoro might, I can see why there would be some wariness. I can see how Orincoro might perceive a sort of 'asking for credit' attitude in some of Stone_Wolf's questions.
-------
It's a little frustrating that you still seem invested in this idea that Dogbreath is pursuing you, Stone_Wolf. You were certainly quick to accuse him of deliberately starting shit. And if you disapprove of his interjection, well that's certainly your right, but please try to remember you've chimed in to discussions that you weren't involved in just to criticize before yourself.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, you're bigger hearted than me. I certainly wouldn't waste my breath on lecturing somebody like that, anyway. As if it would help; as if I understand what somebody like that feels and will respond to. I can't imagine it, and I suspect like most people, I prefer to avoid thinking about it, much to our shame, I'm afraid.
I dunno, after that I volunteered at a homeless shelter in Indiana for a while (one that mostly serviced homeless families/families on the brink of homelessness and were in hunger) and I found the main thing homeless people respond to is being listened to. Having their thoughts, feelings, and ideas validated, feeling like they matter. Food and shelter too, of course. (Salt Lake City came up with the brilliant idea of, you know, giving homeless people homes. And it's worked pretty well so far)
I don't know if I have a big heart, though. There was a lot of emotional trauma in my life from the ages of 16-18, and I'm not sure how intact I was for a while after that. Like for me, I didn't feel the sense of pity or otherness or maybe revulsion that people feel when they say the homeless who lived around my building, I just saw people who were like me: lonely, confused, probably in a place in life I was going to end up sooner or later. (So far I've done pretty well and seem to be in a place where that's now only a remote possibility, but there's reasons I subjected myself to 5 years of indentured servitude beyond the free college)
In any case, I'm not sure if I was entirely motivated by altruism, which is probably a good thing: there's nothing more irritating for a person in need than when the person filling that need wants to *feel good* about themselves for doing so, and just ooze good will and pity and smiles and condescension out their pores. Homeless folks will flock to the crabby old lady serving breakfast who's been doing it for 30 years and doesn't mind telling them off - ignoring a dozen college students out being "humbled" by "experiences" that they'll write self-aggrandizing Facebook posts about later - much like a cat going to the one person who hates cats in a room full of people cooing at it. But humility is an elusive beast, and I think it's best just to be your normal abrasive, imperfect self and stay mostly quiet than to put on a facade. Maybe. I don't know.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's a little frustrating that you still seem invested in this idea that Dogbreath is pursuing you, Stone_Wolf. You were certainly quick to accuse him of deliberately starting shit. And if you disapprove of his interjection, well that's certainly your right, but please try to remember you've chimed in to discussions that you weren't involved in just to criticize before yourself.
This interjection was to defend Orincoro against what appeared to me to be a rather ridiculous claim. (Not trying to insult you here, Gaal) I'm not entirely sure it makes any sense for Stone_Wolf to disapprove it, though I could see why since it involves someone who is antagonizing him.
The first "interjection" he mentioned, though, was when I was quite involved in the discussion and was trying to make sense of a rather bizarre joke. I'm not sure how he could even interpret that as "trying to start shit" between him and Lyrhawn. I considered asking him, or expressing my lack of aggression, but last time I did that I got threatened, cursed at, called a liar, and had an attack thread started. So you can see why I'm somewhat hesitant to try and persuade him at this point.
Really, it's fairly clear that if I post *anything* here (even a movie review in a completely unrelated thread) he's going to perceive it as deeply antagonistic, and in a manner that he thinks is somehow worse than anything Orincoro said. Which is frustrating, but what can you do? Have another come-to-Jesus moment that gets forgotten after two weeks? I've decided to just ignore it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The first "interjection" was after Stone_Wolf misinterpreted Lyrhawn's post as a joke suggesting that he should get a vote proportional to his knowledge of politics, hence his "So I should get 1/10 of a vote", instead of Lyrhawn supporting a legitimate form of alternative voting. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but it seemed obvious to me after one read.
In your movie review thread, he was clearly trying to poke fun at your past arguments, regardless of whether it was actually funny or not, not legitimately perceiving your post as deeply antagonistic. He labeled it as such.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can you explain further Samp, I'm afraid I'm not following.
when orin is doing enough to be an asshole people don't need to be inventing ways in which he is an asshole, as though just to help it along. and dogbreath is jumping in to ford the issue and keep things clear about what's actually going on, without defending orin's insults
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry you feel that. Honestly, because I did take it too far with the drama/emotions last time and not enough with the evidence. I'll try again, calmer and with more/better explanation. (Oh my god I missed my laptop SO much...I'm never posting anything longer than a paragraph using my phone ever again!!!)
quote:...and in a manner that he thinks is somehow worse than anything Orincoro said.
Orin and I have more history than Israel and Palestine, going back years. So, yea, I actually -feel- more from your calm comments than his abusive ones, because he as zero credibility {when it comes to myself, and vice versa). You get more ire because Orin is Orin, and that's not about to change. But despite our past difficulties, I still fundamentally care what you think.
Allow me to explain with examples...
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seems like you are a little late to the discussion for indignation.
You realize you're posting in a thread he started, right? And that he's been participating in it this entire time?
This isn't about the topic at hand, it's about how I'm addressing another poster. To which I respond...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Thread drift is real man
I.e. my comment was appropriate as at this point in the discussion I have agreed to vote. So things have moved from where they started...i.e. my stating I thought my voting wouldn't affect anything.
Here is your response.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: (none)
More to come, must feed wife and self.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait, how can you be frustrated by his remark to you if your defense is 'thread drift is real'? Which incidentally I think it's true, but don't you by saying that more or less give up the grounds to point out 'not the place for that, man' to someone else's remarks?
That and Dogbreath was flat out right, it was a little silly to reject since he had been a part of the conversation and in fact he started it, but you were trying to suggest his remarks didn't have a place in it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
(this part is out of order, just as an explanation)
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Because I should only get 1/10 of a vote?
I'm struggling to see how you interpreted his post like this.
Is this DB moderating me or simply confused and seeking further explanation?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That was a joke DB...guess I shoulda used a smiley.
This is a bone fide explanation...I thought if you understood the context that I was joking it would be enough to be understood.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Also...I had a double post....I deleted it...that might have ruined Lyr's joke.
I further explain...double post = a need for proportionate voting.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I don't think he was joking...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm getting that same feeling.
Calm...discussion...no problem...I'm taking what you are saying seriously...I ask Lyr to explain. After he he explains, I say...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Thanks...convincing argument.
What would it take, do you think, for our system to adopt this, in what timeframe?
to which you repy...
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Ha ha that sure is a funny joke Lyrhawn
So at this point, you are either openly mocking me or being sarcastic or something! But I try and not assume, I try and just be like wtf dude?...
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is that misguided anger? Or whaa?
No, you made a joke about how you only get 1/10th vote or whatever and then when I asked for an explanation you made it out like you were just responding to Lyrhawn's joke that I'm too dense to understand. Lyrhawn said pretty much exactly what I thought he meant, but I'm still just as baffled by your response to his "joke."
Okay...it seems you are taking something I said as a slam..."too dense to understand"...this is not my intent...I'll just clear this up...with a straight forward question if there is a problem that needs taking care of...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm happy to explain the joke...but I think I hit the nail the head man.
Ranked voting...ranked by what? Knowledge of the issues...result...I get less votes. Self deprecation.
You are badly misreading the dynamic between Lyr & myself who are friends from fantasy football, a Detroit reading charity & Facebook.
Have you appointed yourself my keeper or something?
Your response...
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: {none}
But I don't press you. I don't push the topic...for two reasons...A) About this time Orin started "participating" and B) I owe you a little latitude due to my recent outburst. So I drop it...and next I hear from you...
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Had to look up "fatuous blovations."
If you started following politics you would see both words far more often. (while you're at it you should look up 'bloviation' too. You're missing a syllable there)
Anyway, you've done this several times: complaining about people using relatively common polysyllabic words because you're inconvenienced into having to look them up. There are several free, easy to use dictionary apps out there. It takes maybe 3 seconds to type the word in (or less because it guesses the word in a drop down menu) and a second or two to read the definition. It's not like you have to actually search for it in the dictionary any more.
So...now my acknowledging publicly that I'm ignorant (this is the normal state of mankind, and I am not ashamed to admit it, no human is all knowing) and doing something about it (relevant to this discussion) is interpreted as a complaint...with a grammar correction. My response...still calm...a simple statement of my intent...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wasn't complaining...just noting I didn't kno the words meaning.
Meanwhile Orin is going apeschitte in the background...next you are talking to Gaal about Orin...all reasonable...no problem and then...this
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ...Edit for clarity: To the extent that I would "take sides" on this issue, in 6 years of posting here I don't think Orincoro has ever belittled, degraded, or spoken down to me once. Even when I have said things or expressed opinions contemptible enough to deserve that level of scorn, he's been very respectful and patient with his responses to me - far more so than I have been to him. Stone Wolf, OTOH, has belittled, degraded, or spoken down to me several times in the *past month*. So I would strongly recommend rereading what's been said here in that context and consider if Orincoro is actually taking pleasure in degrading him, or merely calling him out for what he perceives as dishonesty.
Nevermind that at this point Orin is openly hostile, to the extent of going against the MOS, and I'm calm, not ranting or raving...you call for people to judge us not on our actions, but on -your perceptions of past interactions with us individually-.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You kno the part that bugs me isn't Orin's naked aggression...that I've become numb to. No, it's DogBreath...trying to interject (and stir up shit?) between me and Lyr...and when I call him out on it...nada. Until he interjects again...to point out how rough I was on him. That's exactly what he accused me of.
I'm still calm, not railing or getting personal...and then (after talking to others)...you say this about me:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Really, it's fairly clear that if I post *anything* here (even a movie review in a completely unrelated thread) he's going to perceive it as deeply antagonistic...
Despite my deliberate calmness, despite letting things go, despite careful labeling and explanation you think its -clear- that I perceive things that are innocent as antagonistic? I don't.
Why am I bothering with all this? I really think you and I can get along, can stop all this grab ass and really contribute to the board. Unlike Orin and myself.
ETA: I really couldn't have done all this on my phone (it lacks the text editing abilities necessary) ...that was what I was referring to in past discussions, not any actual malfunction.
[ March 04, 2015, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait, how can you be frustrated by his remark to you if your defense is 'thread drift is real'? Which incidentally I think it's true, but don't you by saying that more or less give up the grounds to point out 'not the place for that, man' to someone else's remarks?
That and Dogbreath was flat out right, it was a little silly to reject since he had been a part of the conversation and in fact he started it, but you were trying to suggest his remarks didn't have a place in it.
Not his remarks, his indignation...about a topic that I had already changed my mind about.
Like throwing an intervention (his thread) but showing up late (thread drift) and then telling the druggie who had just agreed to go to rehab (to vote) that his taking drugs -is bad-. People died to enforce drug laws!
[ March 04, 2015, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't parse your second paragraph at all.
I'll say this as I would to just about anyone else except my sister to whom I know more and owe more and care more if she is upset: your statement about ignorance being the 'natural state' is technically true but ridiculous in this context. You weren't on a desert island for the past thirty, forty? years with no contact with the outside world until recently, were you? You aren't ignorant about American government because 'ignorance is the natural state of humans'-you're ignorant of it because, your own explanation, you were lazy and apathetic and thought it made no difference anyway.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Apparently me not saying anything at all (because a response wasn't elicited, explicitly or implicitly) is now a sure sign of my aggression.
Stone_Wolf: the unintelligible part of your post aside, you're doing some pretty crazy mental gymnastics here to try and twist my posts here into some sort evidence of hostility. Quite simply: stop reading so much into what I say.
If I say "I'm struggling to see how you interpreted his post like this.", it should be read exactly as such. Trying to find evidence of mockery or moderation (whatever that means in this context) or aggression or "baiting" or what have you in such benign statements is pretty absurd. But what's really nuts is after being insulted and degraded pretty extensively by another poster, your immediate response is to come after me for some perceived slight. Why?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My statement about Elison's comment is similar to the throwing an intervention (for me, about not fulfilling my citizen's obligation) in Elison's living room (his thread) but, Elison shows up late to the intervention (thread drift) and then tells the druggie(me) who had just agreed to go to rehab (to vote) that his taking drugs -is bad- (scolding me for the attitude I just changed and no longer have) . People died to enforce drug laws! (Elison injecting hubris after the fact).
As to the ignorance that is excused by my being human...it was -not knowing- the definitions of detente, fatuous and bloviation that I was referring to.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Apparently me not saying anything at all (because a response wasn't elicited, explicitly or implicitly) is now a sure sign of my aggression.
Stone_Wolf: the unintelligible part of your post aside, you're doing some pretty crazy mental gymnastics here to try and twist my posts here into some sort evidence of hostility. Quite simply: stop reading so much into what I say.
If I say "I'm struggling to see how you interpreted his post like this.", it should be read exactly as such. Trying to find evidence of mockery or moderation (whatever that means in this context) or aggression or "baiting" or what have you in such benign statements is pretty absurd. But what's really nuts is after being insulted and degraded pretty extensively by another poster, your immediate response is to come after me for some perceived slight. Why?
Welp, you can't say I didn't try...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm just mad at myself really...I chose to give up productive hours of my morning hoping that given sufficient explanation DB and I could truly move forward instead of this veiled rivalry and continual claims of innocence and confusion. Silly me. I'll go fold the laundry I should have been doing instead. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone see that Fergusen report by the DoJ?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Ted Cruz as a plan for replacing the ACA!
quote: - ability to buy insurance across state lines - coverage extended to age 26 is gone - ban on annual and lifetime limits is gone - ban on rescinding coverage is gone - ban on discriminatory rates is gone - individual mandate is gone - employer mandate gone - pre existing protections are gone - mandatory minimum standards for insurance is gone - marketplaces are gone - subsidies are gone - Medicaid expansion flexibility is gone
Etc etc.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So it's basically what he proposed back before the ACA, then: the old status quo, minus state protections. *laugh*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
stuff like that is stuff like Paul Ryan's economic plan — surprisingly worthless utterly unworkable garbage (even for them) just vomited out so as to kind of keep people from saying that they aren't offering an alternative
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
SA - "How many of you have got wolves in your district? None. None. Not one. We've got 79 congressmen sending you a letter, they haven't got a damn wolf in their whole district. I'd like to introduce them in your district. If I introduced them in your district, you wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore." ~ Rep. Don Young (R-AK).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Missing toddlers and house cats...are a small price to pay to be able to regulate vets with ptsd and addicts...by murdering them. It's a simple cost v benefit calculation. You know what would be even better? Let's gather up all the homeless people, and then set them loose (with the wolves OF COURSE) in a stadium and we can sell seats to help offset all the associated wolf relocation costs! Pays for itself!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Representative John Lewis was on the Daily Show Monday. He spoke for a while on his experiences during the civil rights movement and everything he went through to exercise his right to vote. It's incredibly moving.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Both are incredibly moving documentaries, and both go a bit more into what John Lewis and others were doing down there.
Hard not to get a little misty at times. Hard to believe some of these people are real. Hard to believe more people don't know who they are.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Slavery by Another Name challenges one of our country’s most cherished assumptions: the belief that slavery ended with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. The documentary recounts how in the years following the Civil War, insidious new forms of forced labor emerged in the American South, keeping hundreds of thousands of African Americans in bondage, trapping them in a brutal system that would persist until the onset of World War II.
Based on Blackmon’s research, Slavery by Another Name spans eight decades, from 1865 to 1945, revealing the interlocking forces in both the South and the North that enabled this “neoslavery” to begin and persist. Using archival photographs and dramatic re-enactments filmed on location in Alabama and Georgia, it tells the forgotten stories of both victims and perpetrators of neoslavery and includes interviews with their descendants living today. The program also features interviews with Douglas Blackmon and with leading scholars of this period.
In other news an Arkansas politician has apparently been caught rehoming his three adoptive daughters to a child molester after failing to cleanse their souls of Demon's, just like how god intended.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have trouble feeling convinced that this article explains how Wisconsin can be called a liberal state having not just elected but reelected Scott Walker.
It boils down to he tricks people and scares them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That isn't quite what it says. More about how it used to be a liberal state and why it is growing more conservative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It should also be noted that he tricks people and scares them, and Wisconsin is full of a lot of people who are unfortunately easy to trick and scare.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well yes, but the article lays out some of the reasons why the people of Wisconsin are more susceptible to being tricked and scared.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(while you're at it you should look up 'bloviation' too. You're missing a syllable there)![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)