The Left Does not Reason

[clubgop]

If my arguments kinda suck then you would address them instead of schoolmarming me but alas you dont. The main thrust of my argument is that the crazy sjws taking over your party dont engage in debate they shut it down with name calling heckling tactics. If you can beat them then beat them and then join them. They have been beaten and they are holding you hostage the reason I tell you to steer clear is because I like you. You are fairly honest and substantive. Same with LVH and part time birdy. Monty, GCF, et al are going to get straight fire for thier sjw namecalling tactics. I beat them and now I will remake them in my image or just play with them. Listen Dr. Lecter Dont hate that I am naughty, hate that I'm sloppy, that is if I am sloppy.

The Democrats aren't my party.
I'm calling you on being sloppy when you start making the same mistakes your opponents make... playing the victim to the "Marxists" (or Nazis).
I was calling on you to clear up the Soros bit... which you did and LVH responded perfectly to what you and StA wrote.
Namely if the punks were bought then the rest of the gang is off the hook.
To which you replied that they did not react enough to stop the violence... but then when does that ever happen...
People are too afraid of violence to step in... that doesn't mean they agree...
And it certainly doesn't mean "the left" as a blanket group supports it...

But then many do make excuses for it... I will give you that.

Scoreboard, Priorities, and "Hold my beer". Scoreboard, Priorities, and "hold my beer." Those are my arguments.

Scoreboard.
Yes there a billion Muslims and most of them are nonviolent but they are irrelevant cause Scoreboard, the violent ones are taking over countries, chopping off heads, and all the rest of it. Yes Hillary won the popular vote but Scoreboard, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, Reading is fundamental. Yes, you have 8 children in the supermarket and 7 of them are peacefully protesting the $0.10 price hike in arugula but the 1 spilling Orange juice all over the aisles because a grower printed Orange lives matter shirts while elderly ladies are falling and can't get up are going to get the attention cause Scoreboard $0.10<ten of thousands in damages and liability. Yes, most veterans never participated in the Mai Lei massacre but Scoreboard, that doesn't stop Dirty dick from being a disrespectful little shit. For being socialist, collectivist, you guys sure have a problem with the "you are only as strong as your weakest link" concept.

Priorities
Neil Gorsuch will be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Jeff Sessions will be the next Attorney General, Betsy Devos is in at Education, despite the teachers unions, Tom Price will be in at HHS, and you fuckers have no idea but what catches your ire what gets you angry and out in the streets? A gay immigrant jew that loves black men and will never be a government official saying provocative things on a college campus. If I could write the strategy for my opponent I wouldn't even approach this shit because "there is no way in hell they would go for it."

"Here, hold my beer."
The media and celebrity glitterati are killing you.
What's that? You lost white working class voters in record numbers? How can you beat that?
Here hold my beer. We'll call them "pillbillies." We'll apropos of nothing disparage football and MMA. We'll have a candidate for party chair say her job is to "shut white people down. We'll shoot multiple ads with a white background and D list celebrities playing an improv game of finish my sentence telling people how to think and make sure they get the message by playing bad music even by elevator and dentist office standards and repeating every 5th word because our target audience is 6 years old and Sally Field and that girl from MASH that looks like Janice from the Muppets and inspires a craving for Hidden Valley Ranch, both say "important" like butter.

LVH has admitted his impotence, my insults should serve as Viagra. My insults are poetry and don't hurt anybody because whenever you organize and take back the left from the SJW/Corporate establishment/Media complex they are going to really cut at your core. When they call you racist, they have and they will. When they call you homophobic, they have and they will. When they call you Islamophobic, they have and they will. When they call you all the other -ist and -phobics, and they have and they will. If you wither or all you can muster is a tsk tsk, schoolmarm lecture you will lose, again and the preservation of basic rights and Western Civilization will rest solely on the shoulders of people like me. You don't want that, I am not even sure I want that.

[jbird4049]

Would you want a happy, well paid, well trained, middle class assistant for you aged relative, or do you want some sullen, untrained, minimum wage, wage slave doing so?

Can I get a relative instead?
Also, I think you have been getting the wrong ideas out of Dickens' novels.

Why not both? Or hire the relatives?

...Are there no prisons?" he asks. "And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" ... "I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there...

[Okeefenokee]

Would you want a happy, well paid, well trained, middle class assistant for you aged relative, or do you want some sullen, untrained, minimum wage, wage slave doing so?

Can I get a relative instead?
Also, I think you have been getting the wrong ideas out of Dickens' novels.

Why not both? Or hire the relatives?

...Are there no prisons?" he asks. "And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" ... "I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there...

Hire the relatives? Pay your children to take care of you in old age, lest they toss you in a home to be neglected by strangers who are paid to save them the trouble. Gee, that sounds swell.

There is a large rift here, that you don't seem to see.

[jbird4049]

If my arguments kinda suck then you would address them instead of schoolmarming me but alas you dont. The main thrust of my argument is that the crazy sjws taking over your party dont engage in debate they shut it down with name calling heckling tactics. If you can beat them then beat them and then join them. They have been beaten and they are holding you hostage the reason I tell you to steer clear is because I like you. You are fairly honest and substantive. Same with LVH and part time birdy. Monty, GCF, et al are going to get straight fire for thier sjw namecalling tactics. I beat them and now I will remake them in my image or just play with them. Listen Dr. Lecter Dont hate that I am naughty, hate that I'm sloppy, that is if I am sloppy.

The Democrats aren't my party.
I'm calling you on being sloppy when you start making the same mistakes your opponents make... playing the victim to the "Marxists" (or Nazis).
I was calling on you to clear up the Soros bit... which you did and LVH responded perfectly to what you and StA wrote.
Namely if the punks were bought then the rest of the gang is off the hook.
To which you replied that they did not react enough to stop the violence... but then when does that ever happen...
People are too afraid of violence to step in... that doesn't mean they agree...
And it certainly doesn't mean "the left" as a blanket group supports it...

But then many do make excuses for it... I will give you that.

Scoreboard, Priorities, and "Hold my beer". Scoreboard, Priorities, and "hold my beer." Those are my arguments.

Scoreboard.
Yes there a billion Muslims and most of them are nonviolent but they are irrelevant cause Scoreboard, the violent ones are taking over countries, chopping off heads, and all the rest of it. Yes Hillary won the popular vote but Scoreboard, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, Reading is fundamental. Yes, you have 8 children in the supermarket and 7 of them are peacefully protesting the $0.10 price hike in arugula but the 1 spilling Orange juice all over the aisles because a grower printed Orange lives matter shirts while elderly ladies are falling and can't get up are going to get the attention cause Scoreboard $0.10<ten of thousands in damages and liability. Yes, most veterans never participated in the Mai Lei massacre but Scoreboard, that doesn't stop Dirty dick from being a disrespectful little shit. For being socialist, collectivist, you guys sure have a problem with the "you are only as strong as your weakest link" concept.

Priorities
Neil Gorsuch will be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Jeff Sessions will be the next Attorney General, Betsy Devos is in at Education, despite the teachers unions, Tom Price will be in at HHS, and you fuckers have no idea but what catches your ire what gets you angry and out in the streets? A gay immigrant jew that loves black men and will never be a government official saying provocative things on a college campus. If I could write the strategy for my opponent I wouldn't even approach this shit because "there is no way in hell they would go for it."

"Here, hold my beer."
The media and celebrity glitterati are killing you.
What's that? You lost white working class voters in record numbers? How can you beat that?
Here hold my beer. We'll call them "pillbillies." We'll apropos of nothing disparage football and MMA. We'll have a candidate for party chair say her job is to "shut white people down. We'll shoot multiple ads with a white background and D list celebrities playing an improv game of finish my sentence telling people how to think and make sure they get the message by playing bad music even by elevator and dentist office standards and repeating every 5th word because our target audience is 6 years old and Sally Field and that girl from MASH that looks like Janice from the Muppets and inspires a craving for Hidden Valley Ranch, both say "important" like butter.

LVH has admitted his impotence, my insults should serve as Viagra. My insults are poetry and don't hurt anybody because whenever you organize and take back the left from the SJW/Corporate establishment/Media complex they are going to really cut at your core. When they call you racist, they have and they will. When they call you homophobic, they have and they will. When they call you Islamophobic, they have and they will. When they call you all the other -ist and -phobics, and they have and they will. If you wither or all you can muster is a tsk tsk, schoolmarm lecture you will lose, again and the preservation of basic rights and Western Civilization will rest solely on the shoulders of people like me. You don't want that, I am not even sure I want that.

Arugula?

Man, you, and my fellow hippies, can have that stuff!

[jbird4049]

Can I get a relative instead?
Also, I think you have been getting the wrong ideas out of Dickens' novels.

Why not both? Or hire the relatives?

...Are there no prisons?" he asks. "And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" ... "I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there...

Hire the relatives? Pay your children to take care of you in old age, lest they toss you in a home to be neglected by strangers who are paid to save them the trouble. Gee, that sounds swell.

There is a large rift here, that you don't seem to see.

It is not a matter of desire, or of responsibility. Too many people live apart in crappy institutions because the family members that want too, can't because the rent has to be somehow. Families living on awful, unpredictable, low wage jobs often cannot help their relatives. Make it paying job for a member of family. If much of the income in the future might be common from the government, they could just increase the basic income.

[jbird4049]

Whatever successful solutions we come up with is going to involve changing this. Whether we like, or not. I also believe those wealthy individuals will resist.

That's one of the many problems that seem intractable.

The sort of person who gets to that position, would often prefer to see everything collapse than give up much of their power. They'll play chicken with us and they will not turn the steering wheel.

Rather rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven?

Like with Lucifer, it is an ego trip?

The whole economic system is likely to implode within the next 20 years. It could, maybe, crackup the planetary civilization. I am not thinking the Bronze Age Collapse, but think of what almost happened in 2008. The American financial system came to within less than a day of wholesale collapse. That would have led to the whole world's economy to freezing up. Just shutting down.

I'm sure that if that were to happen, if we have competent (Oh Please God) leadership in place, and if there was not any other major problems beforehand. The economic costs would be great, but survivable. If there was serious real civil unrest before the crisis, if people have lost faith in the government, bluntly said, we're just fucked.

While typing this I think about Syria, and what you posted. Syrians had been suffering from a drought, which was worsened by Bashir Assad's using all the ground water. That eventually led to a protest in one small village which spread out into peaceful (relatively) in the cities. When it looked like the Assad Regime might fall, they sent in tanks to start killing unarmed protesters. Who weren't unarmed for long. So all the moderates are dead, and Assad just might rule over a wasteland. In just one prison camp, that regime had over 13000 people. Some victory. It also helped give ISIS the space it needed to start.

What I was going to say before I went off to Syria is that we might not have choice. Doing nothing pretty guarantees ruin, while doing something gives us a chance. Small, perhaps, but real.

[Okeefenokee]

Why not both? Or hire the relatives?

Hire the relatives? Pay your children to take care of you in old age, lest they toss you in a home to be neglected by strangers who are paid to save them the trouble. Gee, that sounds swell.

There is a large rift here, that you don't seem to see.

It is not a matter of desire, or of responsibility. Too many people live apart in crappy institutions because the family members that want too, can't because the rent has to be somehow. Families living on awful, unpredictable, low wage jobs often cannot help their relatives. Make it paying job for a member of family. If much of the income in the future might be common from the government, they could just increase the basic income.

Do you have any experience with this? It sounds like you don't.

Assisted living facilities, aka old folks homes, are expensive. Poor people don't put their parents into homes. My elders came from the depression. They didn't put their parents into homes. My great grandmother lived in her home, where just about everyone in the family lived at one point or another, until she died in her nineties. When she got to the point that she needed assistance, it meant one or more of us were there every day for about twenty years. My grandmother is in her eighties. She's lived alone in south Atlanta since Grandpa passed a few years ago. Several days a week, someone is there to clean her house, or take her out to run errands. Growing up, she owned multiple houses in Atlanta that we grew up in. Even in her own house, many of us have spent years living under her roof when times were hard, myself included. When the economy crashed nine years ago, my old man told me he was going to lose his house, so I needed to pack my things so he could put them in storage. I bought the house. I've been trying to get him to come live with me for years, but the Army has always had me so far away from home that he won't do it, because he wants to stay close to Grandmama, which I understand.

It seems to be your proposal that we abandon the idea that families should stick together, and instead make the state the source of care for the elderly. It seems certain, at least, that you are suggesting that the idea that families should stick together is folly, given reality, and we should adjust. I don't agree with either of these suppositions. Statistically, I should be a ruin. Poor kid from the south from a poor family with no education. That kid's fucked. I should be in a trailer park dealing meth. Then I would be what you suggest. A ward of the state. Using my foodstamps to buy booze and dope while defrauding medicaid so I can sell pain pills for spending money. (Again, I know about these things.)

At no point will I consider absolving individuals of their responsibilities to their kin in favor of state assistance. I've seen my entire life what welfare accomplishes. I've seen what it looks like when children don't show reverence to their parents and elders. In white communities, it creates trailer trash. In black communities, in creates thugs. It never creates anything good.

The idea that the government would need to pay people to care for their relatives is as foreign an idea to me as sushi, and I would eat grilled grubs before I ate sushi.

[de officiis]

Yes, you have 8 children in the supermarket and 7 of them are peacefully protesting the $0.10 price hike in arugula but the 1 spilling Orange juice all over the aisles because a grower printed Orange lives matter shirts while elderly ladies are falling and can't get up are going to get the attention cause Scoreboard $0.10<ten of thousands in damages and liability

[Montegriffo]

Why not both? Or hire the relatives?

Hire the relatives? Pay your children to take care of you in old age, lest they toss you in a home to be neglected by strangers who are paid to save them the trouble. Gee, that sounds swell.

There is a large rift here, that you don't seem to see.

It is not a matter of desire, or of responsibility. Too many people live apart in crappy institutions because the family members that want too, can't because the rent has to be somehow. Families living on awful, unpredictable, low wage jobs often cannot help their relatives. Make it paying job for a member of family. If much of the income in the future might be common from the government, they could just increase the basic income.

This is now policy in the UK. It's called the carers allowance and enables people to look after relatives at home rather than send them to poorly run establishments which cost the government far more than the allowance paid. The only real arguments put forward against the system come from those who believe the allowance is not high enough as it is no more than basic unemployment rates.

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit.../C ... -Allowance

The person you care for must be getting a relevant benefit because of their disability,which in some cases has to be paid at a certain rate. Carer's Allowance (CA) is paid at £62.10 a week (2015/16 rate). The amount paid is usually increased each April.

However it has led to some genuinely disabled people being reassessed and refused benefit due to fraudulent claims from unscrupulous members of society who see it as a way of avoiding looking for work.

[Xenophon]

Hire the relatives? Pay your children to take care of you in old age, lest they toss you in a home to be neglected by strangers who are paid to save them the trouble. Gee, that sounds swell.

There is a large rift here, that you don't seem to see.

It is not a matter of desire, or of responsibility. Too many people live apart in crappy institutions because the family members that want too, can't because the rent has to be somehow. Families living on awful, unpredictable, low wage jobs often cannot help their relatives. Make it paying job for a member of family. If much of the income in the future might be common from the government, they could just increase the basic income.

Do you have any experience with this? It sounds like you don't.

Assisted living facilities, aka old folks homes, are expensive. Poor people don't put their parents into homes. My elders came from the depression. They didn't put their parents into homes. My great grandmother lived in her home, where just about everyone in the family lived at one point or another, until she died in her nineties. When she got to the point that she needed assistance, it meant one or more of us were there every day for about twenty years. My grandmother is in her eighties. She's lived alone in south Atlanta since Grandpa passed a few years ago. Several days a week, someone is there to clean her house, or take her out to run errands. Growing up, she owned multiple houses in Atlanta that we grew up in. Even in her own house, many of us have spent years living under her roof when times were hard, myself included. When the economy crashed nine years ago, my old man told me he was going to lose his house, so I needed to pack my things so he could put them in storage. I bought the house. I've been trying to get him to come live with me for years, but the Army has always had me so far away from home that he won't do it, because he wants to stay close to Grandmama, which I understand.

It seems to be your proposal that we abandon the idea that families should stick together, and instead make the state the source of care for the elderly. It seems certain, at least, that you are suggesting that the idea that families should stick together is folly, given reality, and we should adjust. I don't agree with either of these suppositions. Statistically, I should be a ruin. Poor kid from the south from a poor family with no education. That kid's fucked. I should be in a trailer park dealing meth. Then I would be what you suggest. A ward of the state. Using my foodstamps to buy booze and dope while defrauding medicaid so I can sell pain pills for spending money. (Again, I know about these things.)

At no point will I consider absolving individuals of their responsibilities to their kin in favor of state assistance. I've seen my entire life what welfare accomplishes. I've seen what it looks like when children don't show reverence to their parents and elders. In white communities, it creates trailer trash. In black communities, in creates thugs. It never creates anything good.

The idea that the government would need to pay people to care for their relatives is as foreign an idea to me as sushi, and I would eat grilled grubs before I ate sushi.

Great post, Okee.

I bolded the sentence in your post that you obviously have no experience with, jbird. I'm not sure how Yankees do it, but in my family too, coming from rural Georgia, sending family members to homes is usually an avenue taken by those who have the money to do it. In my family, the elderly have always been taken care of by their children or grandchildren. I took care of my 90 year old Grandpa in his old age because my Granny couldn't do it herself. That means changing the Depends, making sure he was up and dressed, that kind of stuff.

Any old folk's home I've ever been to has been one where the elderly are shoved into rooms with an old CRT tv with basic cable. They get fed and are allowed to go talk to their neighbors as long as they're able, until they grow so despondent they spend all day in bed, and are ignored by the medical staff.

Anything the government "gives" you comes with a price. Usually a societal one.