The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

Edward Dolan wrote:
"still me" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:

On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
at election time.
But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
keep sucking it up.

The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
see that things are not going right for them.
I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.

Has it ever occurred to you that we get the government that we deserve?

Wow! Ed Dolan is actually right about something.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Keats" wrote in message
. ..
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
"still me" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
wrote:

The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
inasmuch
as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
So, running against him will work as a strategy.
I actually
consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
short in
the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
the last
two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
she will
likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
leftish
coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
mean the
real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
cows, not
Chicago.
They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
now there
aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
the
Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
liberals.
Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip
services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at
election time.

The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
see that things are not going right for them.

--

Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance
the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:

"The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
five main findings:

• White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the electorate),
delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic tipping point —
the income level at which whites were more likely to vote Republican than
Democrat — was $23,700, not far above the poverty level. Moreover, white
middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the same towering
majorities to Republicans.

a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
Democrats, regardless of income level.
a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
Party.
a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
predicts voting behavior.
a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a dramatic
increase in Republican support."

The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained ****ing,
especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls really) are
then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being anything but
poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to the next. Keeping
your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved the poverty problem
in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!

[Yawn]

Fighting biology is stupid. The much more sexually liberal Benelux and
Scandinavian countries have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and
venereal diseases than the US. All "abstinence based sex education" does
is insure teens will be ignorant of how to protect themselves when they
do have sex.

On the other hand, "abstinence based sex education" appeals to the
non-thinking social conservatives when presented in a 30-second sound
bite - the actual outcome of the policy be damned.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

(not Tom) Keats wrote:
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:EsOdnZiPOc3RylzbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
. ..
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in
message

On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
at election time.

The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
see that things are not going right for them.

--

Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance
the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:

"The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
five main findings:

. White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the
electorate), delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic
tipping point - the income level at which whites were more likely to vote
Republican than Democrat - was $23,700, not far above the poverty level.
Moreover, white middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the
same towering majorities to Republicans.

a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
Democrats, regardless of income level.
a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
Party.
a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
predicts voting behavior.
a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a
dramatic increase in Republican support."
The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained
****ing, especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls
really) are then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being
anything but poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to
the next. Keeping your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved
the poverty problem in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!


Others, EXCULDING, of course, the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Left
Secular Progressives, many democrats, and other assorted poverity pimps,
have said pretty much the same thing. Here's how Walter Williams,
syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics at George Mason University,
put it:

"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high
school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum
wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country
there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
program available to increase your skills.
Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so they
can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or just
feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
to keep you in place.

Another person who obviously knows no inner city black people and
therefore has no understanding of how the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow
has produced a dysfunctional culture.

Rich white people created the problem, then they turn around and blame
the victims.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
"still me" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
wrote:

The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
inasmuch
as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
So, running against him will work as a strategy.
I actually
consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
short in
the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
the last
two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
she will
likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
leftish
coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
mean the
real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
cows, not
Chicago.
They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
now there
aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
the
Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
liberals.
Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.

The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
see that things are not going right for them.

Well, I have not had to step over any dead bodies lying in the streets
lately, so that is a good sign. I wonder why it is that all the rest of the
world wants to come to America if the working poor are so god damn poor!

The US (and to lesser but still significant extent, Europe) has used its
military and economic power to increase poverty in countries primarily
inhabited by darker skinned people.

Do you notice many Western Europeans wanting to come to the US, besides
the odd laissez-faire capitalist? Despite a lower per capita GNP, the
lower and middle classes are much better off.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

still me? wrote:
...
I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
continuing.

butbutbut, the rest of us are curious!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

still me wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:33:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

You really come across as a social class bigot.

Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New
Orleans. Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based
on personal responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one
problem with that: Dems will not keep getting elected if this
occurs.

Get a clue.

I have a clue. Your first problem is that you assume anyone who
opposes that a-hole of a President and his crony neo-con fascists who
are selling us down a river is a Democrat. Your second problem is that
you are the definition of the brainwashed masses that the neo's are
pulling along like lemmings.

I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
continuing.

Nonsequitur much? LOL

Bill "oh, and Flogger wants to know who you really are" S.

"still me" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:52:40 -0500, "Keats" wrote:

"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from
high
school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the
minimum
wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our
country
there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
program available to increase your skills.

Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so
they
can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or
just
feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
to keep you in place.

Nice theory, but it doesn't wash. I'm no fan of endless, wasteful
social programs, but the very people promoting the financial
assistance programs you cite are the Democrats - who you accuse of
having some farfetched conspiracy to keep people in poverty.

Logic just defeated you.

Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
you - never uttering a positive word.

As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal. Nothing
too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and I'll
show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.

Keats

"still me" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41 -0500, "Keats" wrote:

Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
you - never uttering a positive word.

Don't assume people are Democrats just because they can objectively
recognize that Bush is a neo fascist, neo con moron puppet without a
clue who has caused great harm to the USA that will take decades to
repair.

I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
standardized testing.


Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?



As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
Nothing
too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
I'll
show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.



You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
(paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
long poverty.


I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.

"still me" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:56 -0500, "Keats" wrote:


I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
standardized testing.


Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?

The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
clue".


The only clues I have are the ones you supply. And as far as logic goes I'm
not so sure you've got a clue.




FWIW, I'm none too fond of unions in general or the teachers union in
particular. More importantly, it's obvious that you haven't seen the
hands-on effect of what happens when the state starts dictating
universal tests. It leads directly to state dictated curriculum, a
horrible idea. It ruins good schools that were doing their job, and it
doesn't make any difference in the schools that weren't doing their
job.

As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket
science.
Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and
stay
married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
Nothing
too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
I'll
show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this
language
isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.



You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
(paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
long poverty.


I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.

Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".

Ok, so the quote was all inclusive and did include kids, young people,
middle aged people, older people, seniors, black people, white people,
yellow people, red people, brown people, pink people, fit people, unfit
people, average people, below average people, above average
people.............I could go on and on with this but maybe, just maybe
you've managed to get the idea.

So how does that change anything?

Keats (as Dr. Phil might say - I'm stupefied by this guest)