Tim_N
5562
Using ships to help with disaster relief is certainly great, but what about the 800 million who don’t have enough food or the tens of thousands of kids under five who die each day from preventable causes? I’ve found it’s very hard for a person to disagree with a small portion of their tax dollars being used to literally stop little kids dying, as many of them can personally relate to the feelings they felt towards their own children when they were young.
Educating the public would go a long way, particularly so because of what Woolen Horde just mentioned.
Perhaps I am lacking perspective of the U.S scene, but the left-wing in America give far less attention to this issue than I see in the left of Australia, UK, Europe, etc.
Maybe he’s confusing Obama with Trump, who said that very thing today: Maybe let Cuba “take it over” after we “load it up with bad dudes”
Miramon
5564
Apparently Trump is bragging about his bible knowledge again. I wonder if anyone will dare call him on it? Seems doubtful he could cite chapter and verse on anything.
This is a little late, but mark me down as someone who thinks that calling a woman a “whore” is childish.
Realize that American voters are happy to put legislators in place who want to strip out public funding for feeding the hungry and domestic welfare programs here in the US. Getting them to pay to feed children who might be Muslim? Good one.
He could ask both Corinthians for help, maybe.
I would love to see a poll with a blank pie chart of US discretionary spending and have people label it. x
Or how cutting taxes, increasing defense spending and cutting welfare is going to balance the budget.
Here’s a Heritage Foundation analysis of Bush’s (W) tax plan: http://origin.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/04/The-Economic-Impact-of-President-Bushs-Tax-Relief-Plan
One element of the debate over President Bush’s tax plan concerns how it will affect household and government budgets as well as the U.S. economy.2 To assess the plan’s economic and budgetary effects and to help frame this debate, analysts in The Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis (CDA) conducted a dynamic simulation of the proposals in the President’s tax relief plan. The final results show that the Bush plan would significantly increase economic growth and family income while substantially reducing federal debt.3 For example:
[ul]
[li]Under President Bush’s plan, an average family of four’s inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.4[/li]> [li]The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.[/li]> [li]The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax.5[/li]
[/ul]
So yeah, let’s elect another Republican with the same economic plan, only with bigger tax cuts.
Tim_N
5569
I understand your point, but never talking about or contending the issue will not help anybody. There is significant opposition to most left-wing issues in the US, might as well pack it in then.
Tim_N
5571
The snark you’re offering here must be a level beyond me as I can’t even understand it. Are you implying I should leave a country I don’t even reside in if I think at least some U.S. politicians should be talking about foreign aid? Half your posts on this subforum offer insightful information and the other half unprovoked snark that isn’t even entertaining. You’re quite the enigma!
Ditto. Just to go on the record.
Timex
5574
My opinion of her stands. Feel free to think lesser of me as a result, but I do not at all regret my choice of terminology. I have seen her on CNN over and over, and she is an absolutely shameless paid shill for trump, openly lying on a constant basis.
My only regret would be offending others, but i do not at all regret my judgement of the person in question.
I responded with a bit of snark because I can’t tell what you’re actually on about here, and it appears your question was asked with you having a conclusion already pretty well formed. Upon realizing that it was more of a Socratic thing to which you wanted an answer to vector into a conclusion you’d reached before asking, and me having realized I’d mistakenly responded to such a question, I opted to conclude things.
I could’ve posted the picture of the bunny with a pancake on his head instead, but that seems so cliche these days.
Christ, you’re obtuse.
Nobody is questioning that she appears to be a terrible person in service to an odious twit and his godawful Know-Nothing-ism.
Are you seriously unable to understand why calling her a “whore” is a shitty thing to do?
It’s just about the most aggressively gendered insult there is, used not just to attack a woman’s position or politics or view or choice of words but to deny her standing in society and culture in general.
But what can I say, I’m just part of the femocracy.
Tim_N
5577
Well it started as the genuine question “why aren’t they talking about it?”, and after reading and agreeing with the responses I just wanted to tell this slither of the internet that they should be anyway. For no real reason other than it felt good to type. I’m sorry, I am probably the only person to ever come to a politics internet forum with an axe to grind.
You certainly seem to be of a rare breed unable or unwilling to understand why everyone else didn’t nod their heads in sage agreement with him or her as he or she ground that axe, no?
Timex
5579
Honestly, yeah, I don’t get it.
My attack of her had absolutely nothing to do with her gender. It was based entirely upon disgust with her actions.
So then the question becomes, what is wrong with using a gender specific insult? I’m honestly not understanding it, although as you say, perhaps it is because I am stupid.
Like, if i called you a bastard, it’s also generally considered a gender specific insult. But i don’t see why that’s bad.
If you want to make a separate thread about this type of language regulation, i would be interested in it, and perhaps could learn something about it. But i kind of feel like there is some knee jerk reaction to the word whore, because it could be used in an insult that was generated in a sexist context, but simply using it as an insult that had nothing to do with sexism isn’t inherently sexist, is it? If it were, does that mean any kind of gender surviving word like that is somehow sexist?
Words have meanings.
Contrast how you’d feel about the following statements:
“Carly Fiorina is a stupid whore.”
“Carly Fiorina is a apocalyptically terrible candidate for President.”
Then imagine it’s someone you care about. Your sister, or niece, or cousin.
“Ms. Timex is a stupid whore.”
“Ms. Timex is literally the worst person anyone could ever nominate for school board.”
Let those percolate in your brain for a minute. No really, do.
@crampell
Nearly 20% of Trump’s voters disagree with the freeing of slaves in Southern states after the Civil War. http://nyti.ms/1RldrEG
The real eye-opener? That quoted figure is like the 3rd or 4th most batshit crazy thing that story.
