Get owned, Romney

[hi19hi19]

Re: Get owned, Romney

sooooo, you make a point, I give you a data-backed response that shows why your point is disingenuous/incomplete/misleading, and your response is "lol i don't care"

cool man

Yeah I really don't
lmao I don't even usually read your posts because you like to internet crusade a lot and it gets old



All I want to get across is that I've met someone who is literally to the T a welfare queen, and as a result of that experience I DO care what some lazy ass who abuses the system does, perhaps more than most.
I still absolutely support financial safety nets where they are required, as I elaborated on above. But don't you dare say the problem doesn't exist or disagree that it is something we have to be vigilant about.

I pretty much agree with gnr, except that I'm way more sensitive to the issue just because I've been face-to-face with the worst side-effects of the system. The bias of personal experience vs. the faceless masses.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Get owned, Romney

"Internet crusade"? If by that you mean "debunking nonsense," then absolutely.

You do realize that your entire argument is hinging on a single anecdote or two, right? Are you not aware how silly that argument is?

This is precisely the problem I have with this sort of logic. "I don't care what the macro trends show -- I don't care about facts -- I will believe what I want." The mental image you have of these safety nets is demonstrably inaccurate.

No, not everyone is a saint -- but that misses the mathematical big picture. It's a good idea to have such a system in place. Have you looked at the historical data to see which periods generated the most growth? When the country had the strongest economy? Which eras had the most favorable GDP-related metrics? Keep in mind we wouldn't even NEED extensive safety nets right now if our financial/legislative frameworks weren't so systematically molded by pressure from the top to continually push lower/middle class individuals even further into poverty. Other countries seem to have zero trouble figuring this shit out. Why can't the States?

[gnr61]

Re: Get owned, Romney

one time, i met this REALLY annoying gay guy. like, REALLY annoying, you know, with that accent that's sooooooooo gay and stuff. equality is important, but this kind of person is something we must be vigilant about in considering gay marriage

[Emanresu13]

Re: Get owned, Romney

hey guys, i've been on unemployment for a while now, close to four months. i only apply for jobs equal to or above the level i was at previously. i'm gonna keep collecting unemployment until either i get hired(not likely), or my benefits run dry.

this isn't even a sarcastic post, i seriously am putting this out there to get some opinions on the matter.

[hi19hi19]

Re: Get owned, Romney

hey guys, i've been on unemployment for a while now, close to four months. i only apply for jobs equal to or above the level i was at previously. i'm gonna keep collecting unemployment until either i get hired(not likely), or my benefits run dry.

this isn't even a sarcastic post, i seriously am putting this out there to get some opinions on the matter.

I hate that the system encourages you to do that. It creates a disincentive for you to go get a job at McDonalds to bridge the time until a higher paying job opens up. wtf is up with that.

Oh wait jk that must never happen because it's all propaganda and clearly you're a figment of my conservative-poisoned imagination. Nevermind then.
That said, keep doing it, maybe they'll change the system. /lolwishfulthinking

words

See this is a perfect example of you crusading...
You're attempting to argue with me on something where I agree with you lmao
Do you even read what I post or do you just assume since I'm quoting you I must be wrong

one time, i met this REALLY annoying gay guy. like, REALLY annoying, you know, with that accent that's sooooooooo gay and stuff. equality is important, but this kind of person is something we must be vigilant about in considering gay marriage

The difference of course is that I can ignore the annoying gay guy and he can ignore me and we're both fine with that, whereas if I ignore paying taxes that support some bum I get armed officers dragging me to jail. But that's not a huge difference or anything.
And for the record, because I know someone will take this the wrong way, I do wholeheartedly support gay marriage.
I support freedom to follow whatever desires you want so long as they don't impinge on the freedoms of others- your private love life is of no concern to me, straight or gay. And there should be equality for any pair of people who are life partners when it comes to taxes and other legal matters where marriage is a relevant issue.
The difference with welfare is, your freedom to goof off and be a drunk bum ends when it starts directly eating into my freedoms, namely by costing me time and money via taxation.


Anyway this analogy more or less alludes to what I meant when I admitted my experiences have left me with a strong personal bias on the subject, vs. having to care about the faceless masses who are not abusing the system.
I still agree with the premise of economic safety nets, what bothers me is when people are super adamant that welfare queens are a myth. They're not. They're also not representative of the cumulative effects of welfare systems, but they are worth keeping in mind because of the danger that becomes the case (just look at Greece...)

[Reincarnate]

Re: Get owned, Romney

See this is a perfect example of you crusading...
You're attempting to argue with me on something where I agree with you lmao

But we technically don't agree. You made a retarded point and I called you out on it, and now you're backpedaling. lol.

[hi19hi19]

Re: Get owned, Romney

But we technically don't agree. You made a retarded point and I called you out on it, and now you're backpedaling. lol.

I'll give Romney that he has a point as far as a subgroup of liberal voters just being in it for the free handouts.

I've met someone who fits the description of welfare queen so incredibly accurately it erased any doubt in my mind such people DO exist and DO completely remorselessly leech off the system at the expense of hardworking people.
And obviously such people are staunchly liberal because liberals are the ones whose policies feed them free money the easiest.

My original point that a small subgroup of people in America are in fact welfare queens, and that they are overwhelmingly liberal. Nothing more or less.
Nowhere did I say that they were a reason the current welfare system has failed (which I do not believe), or anything else you seem to think I've said.

You then linked three articles that agreed with me- there is a small subgroup, but their existence is not indicative of the entire system.


In fact I've been consistently supporting appropriately crafted welfare systems throughout the whole thread. The entire time I've just been using my personal experience as a cautionary tale, as something to watch that we don't encourage more of in the future. That's pretty non-retarded...
I'm sorry, next time I have a moderate viewpoint I'll be sure not to mention it. I'll just join the rest of the disenfranchised moderates who don't even bother speaking up /eyeroll

[noname219]

Re: Get owned, Romney

One map I found interesting.
Romney def shot himself in the foot. Non-payers are by percentage, highest in Republican states.


This map, however, only measures Americans who file tax returns without liability.

[Emanresu13]

Re: Get owned, Romney

My original point that a small subgroup of people in America are in fact welfare queens, and that they are overwhelmingly liberal.

this is where he disagrees with you

the articles he linked say that they are overwhelmingly conservative

[hi19hi19]

Re: Get owned, Romney

this is where he disagrees with you

the articles he linked say that they are overwhelmingly conservative

Ahhhh, okay. The particular person I was in contact with was unceasingly supportive of Obama, which clearly skewed my perspective. She was probably supportive for other reasons, we never had a real in-depth chat about politics (thank god)
Was kind of hard for me to understand what Rubix was getting at when he only linked three articles with nothing else, but it's my fault for not comprehending his meaning when it should have been pretty clear lol

So I am willing to admit to being wrong there. (oh no that just happened on the internet, end of the world)
Very interesting in fact. I'll go check out that correlation more closely- anytime I find a hole in my knowledge like that I try to fix it...

[Arntonach]

Re: Get owned, Romney

I think the Republicans will take it as an attack against welfare queens and unemployment moochers, rather than the average American. Besides, why admit that someone made a mistake? Especially someone who's going to try to be in charge of the Legislative branch of American politics.

I do think this is rather timely and heavy-handed, but it does shed light on some of the things Romney talks about generally.

[hi19hi19]

Re: Get owned, Romney

I have to agree, I don't forsee many people who are incorrectly-informed as I was being able or willing to take the time to learn haha.
Most people will likely take it as an attack against welfare queens and unemployment moochers without regards for the political affiliation of such people.
Which I suppose is a good thing for Romney, to lessen the "shooting his own foot" impact.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Get owned, Romney

rubber baby buggy bumpers

[Emanresu13]

Re: Get owned, Romney

guys, just face it. romney watches too much foxnews

qft because qft

people have to understand and believe one of two things: either romney is just a man with flaws like anyone else, or else romney is illuminati PICK ONE choose sides do it now

[McGreasy]

Re: Get owned, Romney

qft because qft

people have to understand and believe one of two things: either romney is just a man with flaws like anyone else, or else romney is illuminati PICK ONE choose sides do it now

It's all illuminati. He who controls the money controls the world. Let's not try to act like we understand what goes on at the highest levels of government and so on and so forth and instead look at the most powerful lobbyists on capitol hill. The bank owners. GASP!!!