So much hackneyed demagoguery. Such wow.
The real welfare queens are in Red States
Posts
Total:
58
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The hypocrisy I’m talking about is Republican voters from red states claiming Democrats are socialists when it’s the red state republicans who are taking all the federal money that comes from blue state taxpayers. Without the federal government, red states would starve to death.
Doubling down on exaggeration and your facile interpretation of the data, unsurprisingly. I get it… everyone here gets it— you hate Republicans, and especially Republicans who happen to be poor and/or dummies *yawn* Wake me up when you wish to discuss things honestly. I have a feeling I’ll be getting plenty of rest…
-->
@cristo71
Doubling down on exaggeration and your facile interpretation of the data,
I don’t need to interpret the data. That was done by the people who conducted the study.
The first line in the article reads: Department of Data • Analysis
The topic of the article is - To which states does the federal government giveth, and from which does it taketh away? That is: Which states contribute the most to the federal budget in taxes, and which get the most back in terms of benefits?
My conclusions from this article about data that has been analyzed is this:
Blue states send more money to the Federal treasury than red states. Red states get back more money from the government than they send.
If anybody should be bitching about socialism in this country it’s Democrats working and living in blue states.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Blue states send more money to the Federal treasury than red states. Red states get back more money from the government than they send.
Correct! And notably different from your characterization in post 27. However, the nagging question remains: which party can piss farther?
If anybody should be bitching about socialism in this country it’s Democrats working and living in blue states.
By all means, please do.
-->
@cristo71
and what you’re bringing up here is federalism rather than socialism.And notably different from your characterization in post 27.
Wrong. Post 27 was a response to you trying to parse federalism and socialism.
which party can piss farther?
No idea what you are saying here.
The constitution says the federal government should “promote the general welfare”
That’s what Democrats try to do. With the economy, education, healthcare, old age and more.
Republicans think the Federal Government shouldn’t do anything other than “provide for the common defense”
That’s what Democrats try to do. With the economy, education, healthcare, old age and more.
Manchin disagrees. His state ranks as a 90 on your map, and Democrats hate his state. This is why Manchin thinks his party is full of crap.
There was another Fascist regime that disposed of undesirables as well. Was a pretty popular thing to do at the time.
His state ranks as a 90 on your map,
No idea what this means. It’s like you guys only speak gibberish
This is why Manchin thinks his party is full of crap. There was another Fascist regime that disposed of undesirables as well. Was a pretty popular thing to do at the time
More nonsense .
And Manchin is one of the two Democrats who wouldn’t repeal the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy. So you must have a low opinion of him.
-->
@cristo71
I get it… everyone here gets it— you hate Republicans, and especially Republicans who happen to be poor and/or dummies *yawn*
Yep.
I get it… everyone here gets it— you hate Republicans, and especially Republicans who happen to be poor and/or dummies *yawn*
Yep.
Reported as ad hom
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Thanks for the help man, we really appreciate you guys having our back
-->
@thett3
The lesson is clear: if you are living on food stamps, thank a Democrat.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wrong. Post 27 was a response to you trying to parse federalism and socialism.
I should have been more specific. What I was saying is that this:
Blue states send more money to the Federal treasury than red states. Red states get back more money from the government than they send.
is correct and notably different from your exaggerated and heavy-handed characterization below from post 27:
it’s the red state republicans who are taking all the federal money that comes from blue state taxpayers. Without the federal government, red states would starve to death.
-->
@cristo71
is correct and notably different from your exaggerated and heavy-handed characterization below from post 27:
Heavy handed? It’s hyperbole to make a point. Red states should thank educated democrats who earn high salaries and pay the taxes so red states and rural areas can live in the modern world. Biden’s plan to install high speed internet in rural areas is only the latest example of this reality. The Tennessee Valley Authority and cheap hydro electricity for rural areas is a historic example.
But of course Republicans would never call that socialism. Only help for poor people of color is socialism to them, like Obamacare.
-->
@cristo71
The lesson is clear: if you are living on food stamps, thank a Democrat.
Now this is a classic example of Republican spin and mischaracterization.
Implying that Democrats cause people to require food stamps rather than give democrats credit for helping poor people.
Or implying that poor people are lazy and simply don’t want to work.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
At least you get some of my jokes…
-->
@cristo71
At least you get some of my jokes…
The old Trump defense for saying stupid things…
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I get it… everyone here gets it— you hate Republicans, and especially Republicans who happen to be poor and/or dummies *yawn*Yep.Reported as ad hom
Someone agreeing with an interpretation, is unlikely to cross any lines. Said interpretation did strip context but certainly added nothing to the potential insult.
The previous post it agreed with, has context that makes it not troublesome. Of course, if you feel being described as someone who hates poor dumb red tie tribesmen is character assassination, you're welcome to appeal to whiteflame/oromagi.
-->
@Barney
The previous post it agreed with, has context that makes it not troublesome. Of course, if you feel being described as someone who hates poor dumb red tie tribesmen is character assassination, you're welcome to appeal to whiteflame/oromagi.
ok, so calling someone hateful is ok.
Calling someone stupid is a COC violation.
Is this what you’re saying? This is your decision?
Are you able to articulate why stupid is more offensive than hateful in your opinion or why stupid is a COC violation and hateful is not a COC violation?
has context that makes it not troublesome.
Is context the key?
If so, if someone here says something stupid, shouldn’t we be able to use that context to call them stupid, call them a stupid person, rather than just say their comment is stupid? I mean, if context works for “hateful” it should work for stupid too, right?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Dude, you created a context to which you hating certain people is a fair assessment. Calling people “welfare queens” is very unlikely to be said out of anything kind towards said people.
If the issue is that hate is too strong of a word, then you’re splitting hairs over mild semantics.
-->
@Barney
This exchange seems like the standard definition of "crybully"
-->
@Barney
Are you aware the term Welfare Queen was coined by President Reagan?
So Reagan, and by extension, all Republicans are haters of the poor by your “logic”
This exchange seems like the standard definition of "crybully"
It seems that would be the thinking of someone with low education like a substitute teacher
-->
@Barney
If so, if someone here says something stupid, shouldn’t we be able to use that context to call them stupid, call them a stupid person, rather than just say their comment is stupid? I mean, if context works for “hateful” it should work for stupid too, right?
You didn’t answer the question. Can you respond please?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You didn’t answer the question. Can you respond please?
Seriously? You waited just 45 minutes to complain that I am not in this site 24/7.
As for your question…
Are you aware the term Welfare Queen was coined by President Reagan?
I was not aware of that. Thank you for the information.
You can fairly describe me as someone ignorant on which terms Reagan coined (and it’d be reasonable to expand that to believing I’m ignorant on Reagan in general until something suggests otherwise).
Given that it’s a mainly derogatory term anyway (per Wikipedia), I would consider that a sign of him being a hater. I can’t connect the dots to how that would automatically apply to anyone who does not use said term (unless Reagan is some type of immortal evil which has possessed roughly half of the USA); but you’re welcome to try.
FYI, Reagan is a public figure. Someone can call him a transsexual nazi pornstar who was great at economics, or any other lies, and it would not be a CoC violation.
Calling all Republicans the aforementioned insults, could cross the line due to encompassing site members.
As for desiring to call people dumb:
Frequently, level of provocation, and more all play roles in severity of the CoC violation. I cannot imagine whiteflame or oromagi stepping in over any isolated incident of a single insult; but when there’s a pattern reducing it to just vitriol, they’ve decided intervention is warranted.
Saying someone experiences anger on some particular subject, is less of a problematic descriptor than making negative references to their intellect on all matters. E.g., I gave you reason to think I’m ignorant about fine details regarding Reagan, you could fairly call me ignorant in that matter. It becomes a problem if you jump from that to declaring I’m as dumb as a maple leaf.
-->
@Barney
Seriously? You waited just 45 minutes to complain that I am not in this site 24/7.
You responded without addressing my question. What do you expect?
-->
@Barney
I would consider that a sign of him being a hater. I can’t connect the dots to how that would automatically apply to anyone who does not use said term (unless Reagan is some type of immortal evil which has possessed roughly half of the USA); but you’re welcome to try.
well let me explain it to you. Ronald Reagan is considered the patron Saint of Republicanism. So supporters of the Republican Party are endorsing the term Welfare Queen to be used to describe poor people in America. I used their term against them because it’s a known fact that taxes from blue states are used to support the people in red states. Blue States contribute the lion’s share of tax revenue to the federal government and red states take more than their fair share from the treasury because they need support. Get it?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ronald Reagan is considered the patron Saint of Republicanism.
It’s a political organization, not quite a cult. As figurative speech, it would only be broadly applicable to very old republicans who voted for the guy back in the 80’s. Even then, they could like his ass backwards policies, while disagreeing with his personal views (not that all would care).
That you’re needing to use a term against a group for one of their members coining it, does not inform a great love for them, it rather implies at least a dislike. That you dislike a group and are upset that someone called that dislike hate, seems like a serious over reaction.
That you dislike a group and are upset that someone called that dislike hate, seems like a serious over reaction.
This statement is the textbook definition of crybully.