Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Doom, the ONLY way an adversary becomes “cooperative” is when they are DEAD.
Until then, the best option is diplomacy …. which likely IS NOT what YOU might call being cooperative.
But, it is far better than peace.

Like Pete said: “what’s your point?”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

So, the real & bestest deal would be to just do our usual … GO TO WAR?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Then again: VIENNA — The United States and other world powers reached a historic agreement with Iran here Tuesday, aimed at preventing the Islamic republic from building a nuclear weapon in return for the lifting of sanctions that have isolated the country and hobbled its economy. "

I know idiots will grasp at the most ridiculous straws in efforts to “criticize” Obama … but seriously; try to say that making the Nuke Deal allowed Iran an upper hand? ha ha ha ha ha hah aha hah ah ahah ahah aha ha.

And, yeah … this is all about Obama:
“The agreement between the P5+1+EU and Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the culmination of 20 months of “arduous” negotiations."

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

Originally posted by stanwise:

Let’s see if I can add some numbers to this conversation. I found an article saying that all the wealth in the world comes to $75 trillion, and there are about 7 billion people alive, so that comes to about $10,700 per person. (I’m using money as a measure of resources because it’s a convenient metric, not because I think it wholly encompasses what resources and are.)

Stan, I think your numbers might be a bit off.

This link gives a different number of total wealth: “As a guess, the total worth of all assets in the United States is rough 110 trillion,…”

That is from Yahoo Answers, so it might not be the most accurate … lol
Maybe this one has better info. It appears that the combined 3 is around $40 trillion.

But, I’m looking for more “reliable” figures.
I did find this nugget that shows some nice comparatives. Drop down past the “size” stuff and get to the proportionate comparison of WHO holds what wealth. That is the real issue.

Richest 1% of people own nearly half of global wealth, says report
Folks, THAT is a lot of power concentrated in the hands of a very few.
Isn’t that hugely counter to our American concept of We the People?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Originally posted by issendorf:
You don’t think people who work should be able to not be in poverty? Keep in mind that many of the people on minimum wage work two or more jobs and work more than 40 hours a week.

Let’s clear something up: Only 3% of workers over the age of 25 earn the minimum wage (numbers as of 2013). Two-thirds work part-time. This isn’t a massive number of folks that are slaving away at minimum wage while trying to feed their seven children.

Like I’ve said for a long time now, it is this utter bullshit being put out by “elitist snobs (very wealthy or just wannabes)” that is at the heart of why so many other GOOD conservatives are against increases in ALL wages for unskilled workers …. even to the detriment of their own station in life.

Let’s see how such elitists like to twist facts:

1) Why pick an age of 25 & older? Kasic certainly didn’t indicate such age group in his question. His point was for ALL who make minimum wage. I don’t know why he stopped at MINIMUM … I think ALL low-wage jobs should be considered.

2) Why the odd twist: “Two-thirds work part-time.”? That is exactly what Kasic said. Lack of fulltime workers at minimum wage is one of the many ways the “haters” like to use to support their vile agendas. But, the odd thing in issendorf’s response is how he agrees w/ Kasic and doesn’t realize that in doing so has actually proven the point that ppl on/at minimum wage NEED second & third jobs in order to stay close to the poverty line.

3) What does “This isn’t a massive number of folks slaving away at minimum wage…” have to do with ANYTHING? A significant number of ANYONE having to work at wages that insult the work output they do is simply WRONG. That is why I have a deep disrespect for this kind of “conservatism”. They actually believe it is okay for ppl to live in a subhuman condition while supporting THEIR lifestyles.

4) And, here we have it: “…while trying to feed their SEVEN children."
By somehow trying to paint the typical low-wage worker as somehow being “subhuman” …. it becomes okay to treat them that way. If one tells a lie long enough, it becomes a lot easier to believe.

Link: That shoots issenforf’s small percentage all to hell.
“Demographics of Low-Wage Workers”

The overwhelming majority of low-wage earners who would receive a raise by restoring the minimum wage to its historic value are adults who spend their careers in frontline low-wage industries that make our economy run. Fast-growing low-wage jobs like home care are disproportionately held by female and older workers.

Contrary to stereotypes and the repeated claims of minimum wage opponents, the overwhelming majority of low-wage workers are adults, not teens, and they contribute a substantial portion of their households’ incomes. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, three quarters of minimum wage earners are 20 or older.

According to the Economic Policy Institute’s State of Working America, a stunning 35 million Americans – 26 percent of our workforce – earn less than $10.55 an hour.

The following table, courtesy of the Economic Policy Institute, shows the demographics of workers making less than $9.72 an hour:
This link shows ABSOLUTELY why we need to increase the minimum wage in order for it to have the same purchasing power it had in the years before 2006. Looked at in the right way, any fool can see that minimum wage has actually gone SIGNIFICANTLY down over the years.

The link does agree w/ issnedorfs “findings”.
HOWEVER, that link considers ONLY those AT minimum wage or below. If the lowest level employee make $X.00, those jobs requiring more skill will then pay more … an overall increase in low, poverty inducing, wages.

AHA, I found it and there is a lot more FACTS about LOW WAGE issues.

“Facts About Low Wage Work”

For generations, Americans shared a tacit understanding that if you worked hard, a livable income and basic securities would be yours. That promise has been broken. Today, more than 30 million men and women in this country work in jobs that pay poverty wages and provide few if any benefits.

A large body of research amassed over the past decade clearly demonstrates that the structural changes to the U.S. economy over the past 20 years resulting from globalization, industry deregulation and the computerization of the workforce have led to harsh working conditions, reduced benefits, and fewer opportunities for advancement for workers in low-wage jobs.

Workers in low-wage jobs are the least likely to be provided health care coverage for themselves and their families; they cannot afford the premiums on their own, so most do without. Sick pay, family leave and retirement benefits are virtually nonexistent. Their jobs leave these workers little flexibility to care for their children; quality childcare during “regular” business hours is unaffordable for most, and finding childcare during their many nighttime shifts is an even greater challenge. Low-wage workplaces are often physically damaging and emotionally degrading. High injury rates and unsafe conditions plague these locations, compounding the risks for workers without health insurance. With few opportunities for training or advancement, most are locked into these low-wage jobs.

That these conditions continue erodes Americans’ most cherished values of fairness, personal responsibility, hard work and perseverance, and sends the message that work does not pay. Failure to address this issue not only hurts these workers’ families, it erodes the functioning of America’s communities, its economy and our very notions of what democracy can achieve.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There really isn’t a debate about minimum wage.
The real & serious debate is about how we treat our lowest wage earners.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Any who, we’ve got more than half a congress who’s only clear strategy for the past 8 years was blind obstructionism. Not to mention the whole Tea Party vs Rest of Republicans divide (and I suppose libertarians probably factor in somewhere in the ‘red’ faction, too). Who ever wins the throne still has the challenge of trying to wrangle these squabbling primates into doing something other than pure ‘obstruction’ to get anything accomplished whether it be good/bad/indifferent.

It’s also hard to know if this gets even partially remediated by congressional re-elections (I suspect it won’t due to limited local candidate pools and the overwhelming tendency to keep voting the same people into office every year) or if this round will somehow manage to make things worse (maybe voters will pick in way that further fragments the republican/democratic parties?), either way I don’t have my hopes up.

I just said the very same thing above …. lol
But, it is always nice to have a concurring opinion.

One thing I point out that is different than what you say, IoD: Much, MUCH “more than half of Congress” will be reelected or newly elected. House = 435 and 1/3 of Senate = 66 for a total of 495 out of 535.

So, as I pointed out, it will be a whoooole lot easier for the Pres. to meet the “the challenge of trying to wrangle these squabbling primates into doing something other than pure ‘obstruction’ to get anything accomplished whether it be good/bad/indifferent” should we pull out collective heads out of our dumbasses and focus more on who we are electing to Congress than we do the Pres.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Originally posted by beauval:

I think you’re confusing that with index linked wages and pensions. The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure that every worker receives a living wage.


That is/ SHOULD BE the very axis upon which all of this talking about minimum wage should rotate. I said as much on the that other thread.

For those who do want to “spin” facts about how minimum wage does this and does that, they should be looking at a lot of sources that actually do give relevant data.

Here is one that shows how minimum wage has been “flat in growth” compared to other incomes.

This one demonstrate what I said about how I said that when I was a kid, a family of four could actually “survive” on minimum wage income … and, that is w/ only one wage earner. Sure, the it wasn’t a posh existence …. but, there wasn’t a need for a host of govt. assistance to make up the harsh shortfalls in income we have today that put a huge number of ppl at or below the poverty line.

Same as above
More of it showing that EVEN “adjustments” for inflations are basically meaningless …. so, why even talk about it? Oh yeah, because those who hate the “lesser ppl.” can use it as a diversion so they don’t have to address the real issues of WHO & WHY the poverty level is what should be discussed.

By giving those “lesser ppl” an elevated status, as shown by their earning capacity and the elevated level of their lifestyle, the haters essentially “lose ground” to those who they so desperately “need” to look down upon. This is most of the reason for the mantra touted by those like jhco: “Makers & Takers”.

This one tries to show how increases in min. wage will create similar increases in unemployment. BULLSHIT. The same number of burger will need to be flipped, etc. This “chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling” crap is merely more of the smokescreen being put out by “conservatives”. That chart is the work of: Elizabeth MacDonald joined FOX Business Network (FBN) as stocks editor in September 2007. Need I say more?

This chart indicates that raising minimum wage actually increases overall wage increases. So, just how dumb does one need to be to not understand that more money in the hands of buyers equates to more purchasing going on …. which means more production going on as well.

As I pointed out in my post in that other thread, a “closed monetary” arena means when the rich get richer, SOMEBODY has to get “poorer”. This chart shows that—while the poor’s position is flat (doesn’t change = GET poorer)—RELATIVELY speaking the rich are getting so hugely rich that, by comparison, the poor certainly have a right to see themselves as “getting” poorer.

I was hoping to find a chart that shows how the number of ppl working for minimum (or lower) wages has changed since it went into effect by in 1936. I’m fairly sure it has increased dramatically; and, as shown by those charts above about the flat line for min wages, the productivity (flat or not) means that a huge bump in increased lower wages means an equal INCREASE in profits for the businesses.

tl;dr version: The “standard of living” in America isn’t as much a factor of blah blah blah minimum wage. It is about distribution of wealth … a wealth that is helped created by EVEN the lowest of wage earners.

A good read

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

thijser, while it most definitely would be a huge plus for our Pres to know “how the internet works”, what I want in a Pres is for him/er to be able to form/retain an ADMINISTRATION that will intelligently administrate the laws, and spirit, of our nation.

S/he doesn’t have to have a deep (or even much at all?) knowledge of ALL things.
What s/he does need to have is the ability to create administrative assistance that DOES have knowledge in all of the various areas of concern … and then, s/he needs to use sound judgment in how he listens to and then applies their knowledge.

View it as the Pres using a “crash course” method for learning a subject; and then, applying a form of “best guess” in order to accomplish as much “good” as is humanly possible in the administration of how s/he should go about execution (Executive Branch) the hugely vast number of laws we have here in the U.S.

An incoming Pres has a tremendous task of “reforming” the administration network so that it will reflect his/er concepts … ya know, the ones s/he “promised” the voters. Hopefully, the Pres will have began long before even being elected (let along being sworn in) getting his/er ducks in a row as to how a smooth transition from the old admin. to his can be as “painless” as possible. THAT is no small feat.

S/he will obviously do a lot of “rubber-stamping” of appointments of ppl who s/he knows damn little about. That is where s/he has to trust the advice of his (obviously) trusted advisors. And, we shouldn’t be so naïve as to believe they aren’t needing to trust the advice of those who they rely upon for good advice. Basically, we are talking about a pyramid.

When I said the administrator needs to be a person who can work well w/ the elected Congress … I was extremely serious. The Pres.—while viewed as (and actually IS)—very important; s/he isn’t as important as is Congress. The last 6 years should make that obvious. The Pres. merely carries out the laws that Congress makes.

All of the “promises” the new Pres. has made about “getting” Congress to pass laws only amounts to his/er TRYING to do so. That is why the candidates say: "If you elect me, I will work to make these “promises” happen".

Where the problems enter is that far too many voters don’t understand that they need to ALSO vote to create a Congress that will work to make similar promises be a reality. And then, continue to stay in touch (beyond giving Congress their votes) and letting their voices shout just as loud as those highly influential PAC’s.

We elect ALL OF the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. How difficult can it then be to understand the voting for Congressional candidates is far more important than election of a Pres.? Sure, Congress certainly should heed the message sent from the voters via the ideals held by the Pres.; but, history certainly proves that to be pretty much a fallacy.

What it appears that Congress does is listen to the polls that agree w/ THEIR agenda and listen to the strong influences of the PAC’s.

I probably (hopefully?) am just missing it; but, in all my years, I haven’t found a source that makes the supreme effort to give a perspective on how the various Congressional candidates match up w/ the various Pres. candidates. THAT should be what voters need to looking for.

While I have somewhat strayed from the OP, my intent is to present a view about how a Pres. should be elected based on how well s/he can be matched up w/ the “new” Congress in order to best address the issues hugely affecting our nation.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by James146:

Karma, I agree with you too.

The suggestion I am trying to make is it would be better for the discussion if we focus on other issues right now (I understand you are connecting it with the topic), and leave the wage thing to the other thread.

Look, I don’t know what ya’re trying to do here; but, since ya seem to have some difficulty reading what I said about “leaving the wage thing to the other thread” … I’ll repost it on this page for ya:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

But, since few are tying it [wage issues] to those Presidential candidates, I tend to agree w/ ya that a separate thread about min. wage, etc. should be started.

I’m certainly looking forward to the campaign where this topic will be discussed at length … as well as many, MANY other issue that are of paramount importance today.

I haven’t yet seen a GOP Pres. candidate that is up to the task of pulling America out of the shit hole rad-conservatism & insane-capitalism has put us.

If B. Sanders could get Congress to work with him, HE would be the person currently running that would be best suited to turn things around.

Remember, it really isn’t so much electing a Pres that matters;
he has to have a Congress that will work with him/er.
ALL of the House has to be reelected and 1/3 of the Senate.
The last 6 yrs. has shown us just how fucked we can get from a shitty Congress.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by James146:

Karma, I don’t think you quite get what is happening. Sure, minimum wage is essential in picking the candidate. But if that the only thing you are debating about for a entire page in this thread, then it should be taken elsewhere.

If YOU will reread what I said, I think ya’ll see that I am in agreement w/ ya about the singularity of wages being a factor in the POTUS race as needing to be in a separate thread.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

James, look at it this way: wages, taxes on them, and WHO should be paying the taxes IS about who is going to be elected POTUS.

But, since few are tying it to those Presidential candidates, I tend to agree w/ ya that a separate thread about min. wage, etc. should be started.

I think my post went well beyond the simple min. wage factor.
I went into the issues behind it.
I went into the areas that our POTUS candiates NEED TO BE talking about.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

An added thought in hopes it will better put into perspective who it is that I think is “at fault” for our economic/social woes.

Those who have decent-wage, full-time employment are absolutely right to bitch about being heavily taxed so that those of less fortune can have something akin to a decent life. Sure, the taxed (in varying degrees) focus on those who ARE the “takers” (vs. the “makers”). But, the taxed are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.

They should be looking UPWARD instead of down.
It is the wealthy—the ones that own/control Congress—who give-a-shit about how much the “little ppl” (the poor can “eat cake” if they are hungry) suffer …. as long as they are rich enough to live where they don’t have to see such eyesores. If the wealthy shared the fruits of the labor of the working class (such as in much better wages FOR ALL of them), the govt. (the socialistic, compassionate Democrat side) wouldn’t have to supplement those incomes that yield poverty levels. Such govt. compensation comes MOSTLY from the taxes on those making less than $100,000 per yr.

Insanely harmful capitalism is at the heart of our social woes (appear even in England). This bullshit attitude of “conservatives”—ranging from causation of simple thinking that doesn’t have much of an inkling of what is going on …right up to the Buzz H.’s that actually enjoy seeing ppl suffer—has got to stop just as our hate for Gays lessened over the last 2-3 decades.

If we Americans don’t correct this snobbery attitude in SOME ppl, then we are for sure very likely going to implode. Such was the attitude of some of the communist nations of the 60’s—and some of the basis for the Islamic hate of today—about how our materialistic ways would be the makings of our own demise. Basically, we will rot to death.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Sorry, I had to break my post into 2 parts. Format fails if a post is long and has links in it.

Here is a bit of a personal anecdote that might better show what I’m talking about of how those who are blessed in life are so wildly, weirdly intent on kicking those who aren’t so blessed.

When I was a freshman in high school (had just completed my 8th grade in a “country school” where 13 of us baby boomers were the graduating class), my family moved from that very very small town into Wellington (pop 10,000 at the time) where 9-12 were sent. So, basically I knew very few of the kids in Wellington.

I felt somewhat blessed when an unusual circumstance put me in intimate contact w/ the quarterback (Buzz H.; his father a Dr.) of the frosh team. I thought I would be in the “inner circle” of popular kids … yeaaaaaaaa. Now understand, we are talking degrees here and therefore most of those popular kids were decent enough (likely became Democrats lol).

But, there was that elite group (most of them had parents who “had money”) who delighted in putting down (bullying) those who were less fortunate … not only financially, but in ways that only sick ppl would use to humiliate them. Things these ppl had even less control than the income-earning abilities of their parents. I’m talking about looks, “smarts”, athletic abilities, just plain physical handicaps, sexual orientation, etc. Basically ANYTHING that was “inferior” to these blessed kids.

On with the story about the quarterback. The high school (back then: grades 9-12) was an old building. Still it had the basic two-door system for a classroom …. one at the front of the room, one at the back.

There was this kid, Roy Sears, who was likely something along the lines of “autistic”. Roy wasn’t actually anti-social (I got him to open up a bit and found him to be fairly intelligent); he was merely “socially-shunned”. This one particular day, I was early to a class that Roy & I shared. Roy sat—for some odd reason (autism stuff)—sat at the desk nearest that front door. I would have thought he would hide in the far back & away from that door.

But, I see Buzz walk in and, as he passed by Roy, give him a Wet Willie. Roy gave Buzz NO reason for this; Roy had his head buried in a book. Yet, Buzz, for some reason, felt a “need” to diminish, marginalize, humiliate Roy. Even the back-up quarterback was this kind of “putdown artist” asshole. Jimmy B. loved to verbally humiliate (all in the name of “fun”) those who had far less than he did.

The moral: There are those ppl who give a shit how badly others are doing in life compared to them. In fact, these bullies find delight in “elevating” their own status by creating a manufactured gap (of varying degrees) from those who have so very little to begin with.

So, ppl can discuss/debate the minimum wage, entitlements, blah blah blah all they want.
It STILL comes down to bullying those “lowlies” simply because it can be done.
In fact, done to the point that the unfortunates live in poverty. Add in the acute homeless who go uncounted & those 1-in-15 Americans who are in jail (sometimes very stupidly because of mandatory sentencing), and we certainly don’t look any too much like “The Greatest Nation on Earth”.

When I began to have a good look at the more socialistic nations in Europe, I then began to understand why ppl like Beauval just can’t grasp why we have some of the idiotic craps going on here across the pond. I began to understand the huge gap between our “socialist-leaning” Democrats & the “harsh-capitalistic leaning” Republicans (who represent, in varying degrees) the wishes of the bullies who want to have a large group of ppl on which to look down upon.

So: haves & have-nots.
It’s always been with us.
It’s just that I find it sickenly ludicrous when—in America today—the asshole “haves-privileged” want to blah blah blah me to death w/ some “elitist” shit about how the poor deserve to the that way …. AND, merely need to “pull themselves up with their OWN boot straps” … all the while being under the boot heel of those much better off.

Our social woes aren’t about who/what is going on with the economy of the poor.
It is about what is going on in the black hearts of those bullies who have the power to make life miserable for those who have near-nothing in the way of power to change their lives.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Minimum wage …. blah blah blah
The value of the “lowly” American worker blah blah blah
How I want to view that whole situation because I’m some kind of “minor elitist” ….. yadda yadda yadda.

Perhaps Starbucks and WalMart can afford to pay more, but it’s pretty unlikely that the majority of their labor deserves $15/hour. Raising the minimum wage because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside is quite possibly the worst and most inane reason for making an economic decision.

I always knew what was at “heart” of the vile “conservative” thinking that was behind the ol’ “Rich get richer; poor get poorer” mentality. Now, from some of the shit I’m seeing in this thread, it is merely SS-DD thinking that has always been around … as far back as most “civilizations” go.

In what is basically a closed loop of money “goin’ ’round n ’round”, the more of it that “falls” into the pockets of those “haves” … the less stays in the working classes’ hands. I give a fuck if the focus is at the minimum wage earning of the spectrum … the same thing is happening to the wage/salary earners on up the ladder ….. at least until a particular level (some arbitrarily tout it as $250,00) where BASIC creature comforts are met and one probably can afford relatively expensive “toys”.

Some of those comforts can even be as lowly as a damn decent car which will get one to work (preventing being fired for the “minimums”) … as opposed to buying a new Lincoln MKZ for $47,495. I see some cars that have one wheel that is a donut tire. The owner is so poor that they can’t afford a replacement tire; so, they are running on the spare … a tire that is designed to be driven less than 50 miles … enough to get one to a place to fix the flat. Some of those ppl have a donut tire that is down to the tire cords … meaning it could blow and cause the car to veer into someone.

What the fuck is so hard for the “conservative SNOBS” to grasp the concept that their “comfortable” lifestyle (having a 70 inch flat screen, etc.) usually means that they have decent health care insurance? What is so difficult for me is how oh-so badly they need to have others—that are easily demonstratively financially “beneath” them—be so in need of basic health care that such snobbery “compelled” them to faint dead away at an attempt (Obamacare) to actually treat the working poor w/ the dignity of an opportunity for a HEALTHY life?

Sure, my OVERLY SIMPLISTIC ideas above are fraught w/ being subjective, contextual, blah blah blah. But, most of the “rational” I see being used by racist asshole is not also only overly simplistic “jingoism” about the “lazy entitled” who are on welfare … it is hugely inaccurate. Most govt. entitlements are made in an effort to supplement the incomes of a working class that earns wages so shitty that they barely keep their noses above economic-failure waters. Then, there are those that simply cannot work because of a host of legitimate reasons.

But, let’s let those ppl suffer because the obviously deserve their lot in life.
Their lot in life is economically DICTATED by those who have the POWER to control that level of haves-&-have nots.

I see this shit as nothing more than bullying:
1. a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator; More:
tough guy, thug, ruffian, strong-arm
1. use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

While I’ve never been able to understand the “sick mind” that “allows” these (mostly) “conservative snobs” to want to so distance (elevate) themselves from “those people” … I’ve seen it all my life. It wasn’t so bad when I was a kid (50’s) …. because we had a decent middle class. There were very likely working poor then; my childish naivete kept me from “seeing” it. OR, to put in the context of today: Upper-middle-class privilege. Yet, I certainly was at the lower end of that class and more likely to see such poverty.

I did have glimpses of those who “had less”; I just didn’t understand the why of it. It took me some years into my 20’s to see the truer picture of how “the system” works. Ever since then, I have loathed that bully attitude—of varying degrees—that is responsible for the near-pathetic lot in life for those have-nots.

One thing VERY different at that time, thought was how minimum wage was decent enough to keep a full time worker above the poverty line. Not so today.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Yes, absolutely YES … it is Sanders for me; with Elizabeth Warren for his running mate.
So much of what Sanders wants is what is sorely needed for America.
Sadly, it is his age that will be such an issue.

Yet, he will bring talking bullets into the fray that will cause such a new setting for political discourse in an Election. Trump is having a bit of that effect currently. BUT, that man is soooo obnoxious that those issues are lost in the dark comedy of his rants.

Regardless, I think this time around will see a much greater demand from the voting populace for there to be actual talking about the very serious issues we have today …. with all of the mud-slinging shit told to stifle. We want—-nay, NEED TO—-hear the truth of what is going on and just how bad it has become because we are so ignorantly polarized.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Are ya sure ya wanna phrase your OP that way?

As is, ya’re talking about primaries.

I am registered as a Republican …. but, only because that is where the real choices are typically made here in Kansas. The Democratic candidate opposing the winner of that primary really hasn’t much of a chance of winning the office. If the Demo does, I vote for the least likely Repub to win the primary so the Demo has a better chance ….. all depending upon who I actually want for the office.

Now, please try to narrow down whether ya’re talking about primaries or national election … that would help a lot for the discussion. The GOP has something like 16 candidates running for Pres. Well, one of them isn’t doing too good of a job of running … he keeps shooting himself in one foot and CONSTANTLY has the other one in his mouth.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we relax marriage laws even further?

xxROOXTERxx, you might not wanna call it “marriage”; but, ya best be considering something alone the lines of power of atty. Ya certainly do want to confirm, in some manner or another, what the “say-so” status is for your partner. If all we were talking about is EMOTIONS, then ya’re good w/ just a personal commitment.

It is when “worldly” things enter the picture that one seriously needs to be sure proper “considerations” are FIRMLY established w/ the “authorities”.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by Kasic:
I wouldn’t care so much if you weren’t the only person who argues in favor of gun rights

I support gun rights…just not anyone going out to the corner store and picking out a firearm of their choosing. All I really want is for it to be like getting a driver’s license – you show that you know how to use it, understand how to safely store it, and have no history of violent crime or mental illness that might inhibit good decision making.

That’s pretty much the same as I want ….EXCEPT.
I want something like an 8 hr. course (the same as our current concealed-carry permits) that acquaints the person who intends to carry a gun the nuances of a “good kill” (legal) and what the legal repercussion are for a bad one and/or collateral damage (killing unintended targets). They need to understand that just brandishing a gun to “look tough” can be considered assault w/ a deadly weapon.

Plus, a gun owner should have to demonstrate more than just KNOWING HOW to use it … they should SHOW they know how by going to a shooting range and being evaluated (much like getting your driver’s license the first time). I even go so far as to, at the very least, OFFER a run through a course that gives a shooter different scenarios of when to shoot and when NOT to.

I see a particular elevated level of “ad hoc” police auxiliary for gun carriers that would be licensed to be of assistance in times when police are in need of backup and nothing else is available. Just show the policeman your license and have him direct from there. I’m talking about someone that has pretty much gone through relevant parts of basic police training.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by jhco50:

Probably, but he is still an idiot. I don’t think one of would last long in real life if we met. See ya.

So, is this some more of that: “Don’t mess with the bull or ya’ll get the horns” YOU were spouting a couple of years back?

Just WHO are ya talking about?
And, what form of “wouldn’t last long in real life” are ya talking about?
Is this some more of that: “I’ve got a gun and I know how to use it”?
Do YOU not realize such is THE WHY we need a lot more regulations for ownership of firearms?

But, firearms is a bit off topic.
However, such attitude is EXACTLY what is happening to GLBT’s and why it has been extreeeeemly necessary for our country to reevaluate our attitudes about those particular FELLOW citizens.
YOU “threaten” me simply because we don’t agree ideologically.
I wonder what you think about “those abnormal” ppl.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by TheBSG:

There is little skill developed in taking down disingenuous arguments, and I am not trying to dictate your behavior but persuade you to act differently. He’s manipulating you to say things so that he can validate what he believes, or he’s just enjoying himself. There’s a difference between me calling out and denying the debate-ability of his disingenuous posts, and actually trying to rationalize with someone who is not playing by the same rules. I feel like I’m watching you get duped, and I don’t find it amusing anymore. It’s alarming and I imagine all of the kids who honestly pick a side between JHCO and Karma as if there’s something coherently being debated. There’s so much ambiguity in the world, and so many ways we can learn from eachother and grow. JHCO and the kinds of debates you’re going to have with him are not that ambiguity. They’re dead ends and are at your expense and his benefit.

THAT is something I can understand.
Yet, I’m having a bit of a hard time seeing the difference between what I do and what ya’re currently doing …. seriously.

As for those “kids” ya’re concerned about, what part of my shredding his shit (as you are also doing) is going to confuse them? Sure, giving him the time of day might make them think he could actually be able to do something with it. lol But, most ppl who have logic & reason know the difference between bullshit and something somewhat close to the truth. Seeing someone put it in a bit of a different context might be of help to them …. just as YOU do for me.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, you are such a loser. I feel really sorry for you.

Yeaaaaaa …. pity party.
It’s an open bar.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does SD need more Right Wing regulars?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Why would you engage that logic, Karma? There are zero fiscal models that show taxation ruins a middle class. That’s just not true. p>

Perhaps I’m failing to grasp your point here.
For me, OVER-taxation of the middle class—via GROSS UNDER-taxation of those who have the most money—is what is shrinking the middle class.

I’m not talking about population here … I’m talking about how what was once middleclass families are now becoming lower class economically … ergo, the lower (poverty?) class is growing.

As far as “fiscal models” go … I’m not sure what ya’re referring to; but, take your pick from these links to see that my position is (somewhat?) correct.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I love how, whenever I make a plea for people to not acknowledge or humor trolls, you’re almost always agreeing with me and also completely disregarding my plea in the next post. Sorry to say it Karma but you’re like the zoo keeper when it comes to feeding trolls and I wish you would stop pretending we’re on the same team when you do that. I don’t think you should address JHCO in your posts.

whooooa there, bub.
Please check your indignation at the door.

I can deem myself to be “on the same team” as YOU simply because we tend to agree in ideology …. esp when it comes to opposing those of jhco.

HOWEVER, I am not your subordinate; nor am I bound by “team camaraderie” which would require me to observe your “requests” (tho I will give them consideration). I am esp. disappointed in how hypocritical you are currently being on this. On the one hand, YOU want to dismiss the validity of jhco’s posts by deeming them to be “unworthy” of responses (good for you, do that). BUT, on the other hand, ya keep on talking directly to him …. and, breaking the SD “rules” while doing it.

So what if I am the “zookeeper”.
It appears there are other “monkeys” flinging poo at him here …. always has been—sad as it might seem. Perhaps, it is just our way to venting against such ignorant, hateful biases?

What difference does it make if I “address HIM?” in my posts?
Are you saying I should leave out his name?
Would that actually make a difference as to who the author is?

Are YOU now going to take your own “advice” and butt out as he suggested: BSA, I rarely challenge you because I like you, but you have stuck your nose in where it shouldn’t be.”

WTF … this man actually believes he can dictate who should join a discussion.
If I were short on time, sure, I wouldn’t bother w/ him.
But, just maybe I’m merely honing my rhetoric for the upcoming discussion w/ my fellow Kansans?
BSG, I absolutely do greatly appreciate what you say to “him”.
It gives me a different perspective on issues that I already ascribe to.
I realize most of it goes over HIS head.
But, I certainly do relish YOUR perspective on these issues.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does SD need more Right Wing regulars?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes you are doing your best Pete, your best to tear our country apart.

Or, at least, some form of supporting dialogue.

Liberals would like nothing better than to see America become a 3rd world country.
You know this … HOW?
Do you not realize it is past “liberals” that have elevated American values to the point they are.
Do you not realize it is “conservatism” that is the true path to huge reduction in our standard of living?
We are almost there.
PLEASE, drop the hyperbole.
We are FAR from being a 3rd world nation.
We have how many illegals in the Untied States now? Who brought them here? Liberals.
They came here because WE gave them jobs and a place to stay … and, guess what—THEY STAYED.
WOW, imagine that.
Now we embark on a path of break the bank and spend all you can steal from those you claim to want to help.
Is this the latest mantra-from-the-right?
What “bank”?
Do ya not realize it was “banks” that got filthy rich by breaking US?
Do ya not realize that the govt. is “stealing” (via taxes) from the middle class in order to support the lower class BECAUSE the wealthy class won’t provide decent wages, etc.? Do ya not realize the govt. is bought by those wealthy so they don’t have to pay taxes?.
Who would do this, who would destroy the middle class with taxes? Liberals.
Guess again.
As I said, “liberals” who hate to see children in America go hungry certainly are responsible for social programs that are supposed to “fill the gap” in what a decent living wage is. But, were the wealthy to kick in their fair share (money made FROM the labor of the many), we really wouldn’t have this “entitlement” need in America.
You tell me to get a grip….on what?
I think he meant: REALITY. lol
Maybe the mess your kind have laid upon us?
Still focusing on the wrong ppl …. I see.
I would luv to be around to see the look on your face when it finally dawns on ya just how wrong you’ve been for so long on this particular issue of who is the cause of our financial woes.
Maybe my ancestors, friends, and I who fought to keep America free should turn our backs and let people like those on here destroy what is left of America?
So … ya’re saying that all of those here on SD don’t/didn’t have ancestors, friends, family and self that didn’t do any such defending of American liberties? Perhaps YOU actually ARE losing your grip … or “something”?
I wish liberals would think about the collateral damage they always cause with their feel good policies.

I wish that YOU would give a decent consideration to a lot of what we “liberals” are telling ya.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by TheBSG:

You say “gay marriage is not normal” like you can control the universe with your thoughts. Gay people exist, you know? Normally, when people are asked if they want to have sex with, become romantically involved with, or get married to the opposite sex, some people say no. Do you think they’re lying? What about these people’s experiences is not authentic to you? Why do you think your interpretation of “normal” should dictate laws?

I mean, I don’t actually want you to reply to this because you’re either fucking stupid as shit and are so terrified of realizing it that you argue patently idiotic shit on the internet and then backpat yourself like you’ve accomplished something, or you’re a disingenuous troll that either benefits selfishly from conservative politics or doesn’t even give a shit and just enjoys the character, and I learned a long time ago that communicating with you is a waste of time. This post is more intended to dissuade anyone else from actually engaging your asinine posts because they’re substantially void of anything to debate and are almost certainly just you entertaining yourself.

But, ya’re oh-so right.
However, I do wish he would try to come off of his “throne-0-sanctimonious” dictatorship and bless us w/ a bit of the “logic” he uses to so blatantly disrespect most anything that is different than he …. at least as he so depicts here on SD.

But, I’d be somewhat appeased were he to focus on this thread and tell us why “non-straights” are abnormal and therefore unworthy of equal protection of the law—that law being the CONSTITUTION that he so luvs to tout—rather just blather on&on&on about how he believes his ideology on the issue is mainstream.

Jake, NO one is saying that ya have to “like it” or that ya can’t hate them queers.
What is being said is that ya have to “respect” it …. their right to enjoy the privilege/benefits of marriage …. the same as any other citizen. How difficult is that to understand?
You added:

Holy fuck I’m sick of fake/stupid conservatives who either benefit from the system or are too stupid to see that they’re getting screwed by the system. You don’t honestly think you’re part of a party that values individual rights when you want to deny rights to individuals, do you? You don’t genuinely believe in fiscal policies when you support the most neo-liberal, high spending corporate party since the conservative Red Necks initially opposed corporate owned labor unions. You are either ignorant or lying, and I’m sick of it.
Stan, THIS is the kind of “conservatives” I mostly infer when I discuss the shortcomings of that particular mindset.

Of course, a goodly number of those “conservatives” aren’t of the truly despicable kind … those who are bigoted, ignorant haters. But, they are that part which vote/support against their own best interests.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lafayette, Louisiana, Theater Shooting:

You are quite correct in those numbers.

I was bringing up only the more sensationalized shootings that are the tip of the ice burg that tends to be the focus used when talking about the need for restrictions/regulations in America.

But, as the links point out:

“One more figure. There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms. If any European nation had such a record and persisted in addressing only the first figure, while ignoring the second, you can bet your last pound that the State Department would be warning against travel to that country and no American would set foot in it without body armour.”

And, it seems we are too focused in one area … at the expense of the other:

“Everywhere you look in America, people are trying to make life safer. On roads, for example, there has been a huge effort in the past 50 years to enforce speed limits, crack down on drink/drug driving and build safety features into highways, as well as vehicles. The result is a steadily improving record; by 2015, forecasters predict that for first time road deaths will be fewer than those caused by firearms (32,036 to 32,929).”