“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#176844 Apr 25, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Demographics are how statistics are arrived at and since statistics are often what we base our debates on, when one group is twice as likely for example to be recipients of welfare benefits as another, it's not something which can be camouflaged or swept under the rug. Nor should it. There is instance after instance of republicans warning of America becoming "a land of entitlements" which is an indisputable and all inclusive point, but putting our collective heads in the sand as to >which< groups are either languishing in the entitlement condition or stuck in the entitlement condition for the purpose of political correctness, is absurd.The problem needs to be examined and it can't be thoroughly examined and resolved if it isn't truthfully addressed. The WHO in this case, matters.
Examples: The fact is, women are about twice as likely as men to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives The fact is, among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps. The fact is, minority women are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 30% of Hispanic women but 13% of Hispanic men received assistance. The fact is, among whites, the gender-race gap is smaller but the fact is, white women are about twice as likely as white men to receive food stamp assistance. The fact is, adults 65 and older are significantly less likely than other age groups to say they have received food stamps. Those who have a high school diploma or less formal education are roughly three times more likely than college graduates to have been helped, etc. etc. etc.
Those are the FACTS and if you have a problem with demographics being used and openly discussed to pinpoint and establish foundational statistics on which to base a resolution and have a better idea, pen a letter to the US government and tell them to stop doing surveys. In the meantime, there are plenty of comments made by republicans who don't mention "illegals" or "the responsibilities of the black community" when discussing this issue, so instead of your usual break a cue stick over another posters head in your never-ending quest to start a saloon style forum brawl, maybe you should go research it yourself and discuss the topic when you're more well versed.
<Deafening thunderous applause quickly followed by standing ovation.>

Ya NAILED this one, Lyndi (IMO).

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#176845 Apr 25, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Demographics are how statistics are arrived at and since statistics are often what we base our debates on, when one group is twice as likely for example to be recipients of welfare benefits as another, it's not something which can be camouflaged or swept under the rug. Nor should it. There is instance after instance of republicans warning of America becoming "a land of entitlements" which is an indisputable and all inclusive point, but putting our collective heads in the sand as to >which< groups are either languishing in the entitlement condition or stuck in the entitlement condition for the purpose of political correctness, is absurd.The problem needs to be examined and it can't be thoroughly examined and resolved if it isn't truthfully addressed. The WHO in this case, matters.
Examples: The fact is, women are about twice as likely as men to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives The fact is, among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps. The fact is, minority women are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 30% of Hispanic women but 13% of Hispanic men received assistance. The fact is, among whites, the gender-race gap is smaller but the fact is, white women are about twice as likely as white men to receive food stamp assistance. The fact is, adults 65 and older are significantly less likely than other age groups to say they have received food stamps. Those who have a high school diploma or less formal education are roughly three times more likely than college graduates to have been helped, etc. etc. etc.
Those are the FACTS and if you have a problem with demographics being used and openly discussed to pinpoint and establish foundational statistics on which to base a resolution and have a better idea, pen a letter to the US government and tell them to stop doing surveys. In the meantime, there are plenty of comments made by republicans who don't mention "illegals" or "the responsibilities of the black community" when discussing this issue, so instead of your usual break a cue stick over another posters head in your never-ending quest to start a saloon style forum brawl, maybe you should go research it yourself and discuss the topic when you're more well versed.
Exactly. And though demographics say otherwise my personal knowledge of anyone on welfare has been people with mental disabilities, male, female and various ethnicities but mostly white because the demographic that uses mental health services is mostly white. my point was that I as a republican see a problem with the system not the person. Catcher sees himself as above all the racism but shows himself to have those preconceived ideas merely by what he writes. He's a closet racist trying so hard to prove he's not with his little ditties. He also believes himself to be a victim and hugs that to himself like a teddy bear. it's getting disturbing.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176846 Apr 25, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Demographics are how statistics are arrived at and since statistics are often what we base our debates on, when one group is twice as likely for example to be recipients of welfare benefits as another, it's not something which can be camouflaged or swept under the rug. Nor should it.

There is instance after instance of republicans warning of America becoming "a land of entitlements" which is an indisputable and all inclusive point, but putting our collective heads in the sand as to >which< groups are either languishing in the entitlement condition or stuck in the entitlement condition for the purpose of political correctness, is absurd.The problem needs to be examined and it can't be thoroughly examined and resolved if it isn't truthfully addressed. The WHO in this case, matters.

Examples: The fact is, women are about twice as likely as men to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives The fact is, among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps. The fact is, minority women are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 30% of Hispanic women but 13% of Hispanic men received assistance. The fact is, among whites, the gender-race gap is smaller but the fact is, white women are about twice as likely as white men to receive food stamp assistance. The fact is, adults 65 and older are significantly less likely than other age groups to say they have received food stamps. Those who have a high school diploma or less formal education are roughly three times more likely than college graduates to have been helped, etc. etc. etc.

Those are the FACTS and if you have a problem with demographics being used and openly discussed to pinpoint and establish foundational statistics on which to base a resolution and have a better idea, pen a letter to the US government and tell them to stop doing surveys. In the meantime, there are plenty of comments made by republicans who don't mention "illegals" or "the responsibilities of the black community" when discussing this issue, so instead of your usual break a cue stick over another posters head in your never-ending quest to start a saloon style forum brawl, maybe you should go research it yourself and discuss the topic when you're more well versed.
What makes you think I 'have a problem' with an open discussion of facts, about so-called 'entitlements'?.....hey, if you want to lay out four irate and unbroken paragraphs, declaiming that the WHO is more important than the WHY, you don't need my permission to knock yourself out. But I notice you don't offer any solutions either - you're stuck on "who" and trying feverishly to ignore 'why'.
I wonder who you're trying to convince with all this defensive spluttering....me, or you?

By the way, my previous post was three sentences. You might want to examine a comparison between that and your four run-on paragraphs, before you toss out comments about breaking pool cues over heads....especially while you're engaged in lobbing billiard balls in this general direction.

(Just a thought)
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#176848 Apr 26, 2014
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text> What makes you think I 'have a problem' with an open discussion of facts, about so-called 'entitlements'?.....hey, if you want to lay out four irate and unbroken paragraphs, declaiming that the WHO is more important than the WHY, you don't need my permission to knock yourself out. But I notice you don't offer any solutions either - you're stuck on "who" and trying feverishly to ignore 'why'.
Exactly. Small minds are content to identify the "who", and feel smugly satisfied the answers are achieved. It is no coincidence that the identified "who" are always "they". The discussion hasn't even begun until one also addresses what, when, where, and why.

It is interesting when Hispanics are cited. In one discussion, they are derided for being lazy. In a different topic, they are derided for "taking our jobs". How's that work?

Ideologues are long on words, but not so much on connections.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text> I wonder who you're trying to convince with all this defensive spluttering....me, or you?
By the way, my previous post was three sentences. You might want to examine a comparison between that and your four run-on paragraphs, before you toss out comments about breaking pool cues over heads....especially while you're engaged in lobbing billiard balls in this general direction.
(Just a thought)
This particular poster has become notorious for claiming to initiate a discussion, only to drumbeat an agenda rather than an earnest interest in the topic. Try to explore any of her topics in depth, and it jeers, and claims more "important things to do". As you allude, it also is notorious for gasbagging of interminable length, while at the same time deriding anyone else (of opposing views) for anything over two sentences, or syllables. Finally, an appropriate place for CC's favorite, but oft ill-applied, platitude, "Do as I say, not as I do."
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#176849 Apr 26, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently the thread Dems have grown weary of defending the indefensible. And why not?[They] went for making history, instead of ensuring that the candidate for the most powerful job on the planet had the "right stuff" for the d@mn job.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176850 Apr 26, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=iyp9fh-u4w8XX
....hope that helps....

:)
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#176851 Apr 26, 2014
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>....hope that helps....
:)
dat's da ticket....;)
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#176852 Apr 26, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>

1) Small minds are content to identify the "who", and feel smugly satisfied the answers are achieved.

2)The discussion hasn't even begun until one also addresses what, when, where, and why.

3) It is interesting when Hispanics are cited. In one discussion, they are derided for being lazy. In a different topic, they are derided for "taking our jobs". How's that work?

4) Ideologues are long on words, but not so much on connections.

5) <quoted text>This particular poster has become notorious for claiming to initiate a discussion, only to drumbeat an agenda rather than an earnest interest in the topic.

6) Try to explore any of her topics in depth, and it jeers, and claims more "important things to do". As you allude, it also is notorious for gasbagging of interminable length, while at the same time deriding anyone else (of opposing views) for anything over two sentences, or syllables.

7) Finally, an appropriate place for CC's favorite, but oft ill-applied, platitude, "Do as I say, not as I do."
=====

1) If my mind was "small," you wouldn't waste your time riding in here all dressed up in your nifty Dudley Do-right outfit, to voice your extreme displeasure.

2)
What? Entitlements
When? Now
Where? Nationwide
Why? Liberalism

3) It doesn't work and it doesn't matter. There are no jobs.

4) Liberals are long on philosophy and short on results.

5) False.

6) Says our little windbag aka The Prince of Pork

7) No relevance but nice swipe at Chris..

Liberalism ( also known as your PLATFORM) is prevailing, it's a dismal failure on all fronts and you're pi$$ed and embarrassed. I get it.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#176853 Apr 26, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>dat's da ticket....;)
Patting each other on the back like yer both chokin' on a piece a meat. Now THAT'S a Hallmark moment.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#176854 Apr 26, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
=====
1) If my mind was "small," you wouldn't waste your time riding in here all dressed up in your nifty Dudley Do-right outfit, to voice your extreme displeasure.
2)
What? Entitlements
When? Now
Where? Nationwide
Why? Liberalism
3) It doesn't work and it doesn't matter. There are no jobs.
4) Liberals are long on philosophy and short on results.
5) False.
6) Says our little windbag aka The Prince of Pork
7) No relevance but nice swipe at Chris..
Liberalism ( also known as your PLATFORM) is prevailing, it's a dismal failure on all fronts and you're pi$$ed and embarrassed. I get it.
Do you agree with Clivan Bundy's statements about "negroes"?

Should they learn to pick cotton?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#176856 Apr 26, 2014
-USA-1 wrote:
<quoted text>They have mechanical cotton pickers, that resemble a corn binder for that. What "negroes" (as you call them, racist) need to do, is shed the welfare and victim mentality, that the left wing has enslaved them with and used to create a divisive social wedge into this country.
Do you agree with the federal government's heavy handed approach to property confiscation?
Do you think it's acceptable for Harry Reid to bring the full power of the government to bear, to force people out of his way, for him to profit from another one of his crony deals?
Do you approve of Barry Soetoro's "equally well funded as the military civilian Defence Force" and the militarization of many federal agencies? <-o
I didn't, and wouldn't, call them "negroes". Bundy did. That's why I put the term in quotes.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176857 Apr 26, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberalism ( also known as your PLATFORM) is prevailing, it's a dismal failure on all fronts
How does something prevail and fail at the same time?
It's neo-conservatism that's failing. Which is why you're pissed and cranky.
I get it.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176858 Apr 26, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
<Deafening thunderous applause quickly followed by standing ovation.>
Ya NAILED this one, Lyndi (IMO).
I'm sure this lovely whack on the back dislodged....something......fr om Lyndi's....um....throat.

Good job, Bob.
:)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176859 Apr 26, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree with Clivan Bundy's statements about "negroes"?
Should they learn to pick cotton?
Nah....they'd still be on welfare,'cuz pickin' cotton don't pay nuttin. Everyone should go to college - that way they can learn how to grow cotton that picks itself.

Just ask Lyndi.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176860 Apr 26, 2014
-USA-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you agree with the federal government's heavy handed approach to property confiscation?
No.
-USA-1 wrote:
Do you think it's acceptable for Harry Reid to bring the full power of the government to bear, to force people out of his way, for him to profit from another one of his crony deals?
No.
-USA-1 wrote:
Do you approve of Barry Soetoro's "equally well funded as the military civilian Defence Force" and the militarization of many federal agencies? <-o
NO.

Do I agree with the courts that Cliven Bundy should pay his legally assessed and heavily subsidized grazing fees, for the privilege of grazing his cows in the Nevada dessert?

Absofreakin'lutely.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#176861 Apr 26, 2014
...um....'desert'. Must be time to go to work.

:)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#176863 Apr 26, 2014
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure this lovely whack on the back dislodged....something......fr om Lyndi's....um....throat.
Good job, Bob.
Hah. Difference is, we ain't NEEDY like you & yer mentor.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#176864 Apr 26, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Patting each other on the back like yer both chokin' on a piece a meat. Now THAT'S a Hallmark moment.
,he said, with no sense of irony at all, considering at the top of the very same page we find..........;)

Do try and not be so very predictable, bob,
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#176865 Apr 26, 2014
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>How does something prevail and fail at the same time?
My thoughts eggzackly, to CAbob's utter consternation.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>It's neo-conservatism that's failing. Which is why you're pissed and cranky.
I get it.
Neo-conservatism is not just failing, it has had it's full generation in the sun, and has shown to be a putrid mess to all but the 1% and their lackeys. To those among them with the ability to see, and utter inability to rebut in fact, this also contributes to their lashing out in crankiness.
Clearwater

Safety Harbor, FL

#176869 Apr 26, 2014
-USA-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Liberalism is a stunning failure as well. Perhaps we should go back to the good ol' days, where rugged individualism and perseverance prevail, without a nanny state and a bunch of special interest cronies telling us what we can and can't do in the name of holding us back. <-o
Doubt it will happen because power (money) corrupts. Just watched a documentary on what is called Distributed Common Ground/Surface System or DCGS for communication with our military. Most that have used it say its a joke but the disturbing thing is because of a freedom of information request its come to light a bad report from April 25, 2012 was ordered to be destroyed. A more favorable on this system came out in May 25, 2012 of course saying that its great. Google it for info but it might depress you, it did me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 3 min Johnny 4,881
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min Epiphany2 605,332
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min River Tam 778,299
Thousands march in Holocaust memorial (Apr '06) 53 min just American 41
Too many Asians in California which makes it suck (Mar '12) 1 hr Easton 100
The World Will End On May 21, 2011 (Aug '08) 2 hr Protester 16,461
how to lose weight by subway diet 2 hr saly ramy 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Oxbow 560,442
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr Rick in Kansas 265,444
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 7 hr Trannyfucker 136
More from around the web