patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
736,235 comments in 75,740 posts by 10,909 registered users, 3 online now: FP, indigenous, socal2

new post

More Than 1 in 7 Use Food Stamps in U.S. - Real Time Economics - WSJ

By tovarichpeter   2012 Mar 2, 1:39pm   20,268 views   50 comments   watch (1)   quote      

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/03/02/more-than-1-in-7-use-food-stamps-in-u-s/

« First     « Previous     Comments 11-50 of 50     Last »

11   zzyzzx   570/570 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 19, 11:27pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

TPB says

This is more about food prices, and this administrations failure to address the commodity market and over speculation. This is a story about this administration, that works double time on figuring out how to keep people out of the work force and dependent on "Benefits".

12   TMAC54     2012 Mar 20, 12:06am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

Feedlot cows have to have hoses forced down their throat.

Hey T-Lips. How else are we supposed to keep up with these hungry people ?

Have We been using "FATLOTS" since about 1400 ?

13   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 20, 3:53am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

TPB says

And where in the hell are you shopping, cheap groceries?
Not even in the immigrant grocery stores.

Despite Higher Food Prices, Percent of U.S. Income Spent on Food Remains Constant

As Share of Income, Americans Have the Cheapest Food in History and Cheapest Food on the Planet

Historically speaking, food in America is dirt cheap. It's largely unhealthy, but it's cheap. Now if only housing followed the same cost trends.

14   TPB     2012 Mar 20, 4:13am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Maybe 10% of people that make over 80K a year.
But it's damn sure not 10% of your average workers salary, what a blind assertion crock of crap those graphs are.

necessities = essentials (food, clothing, and shelter)

Discretionary income = Gross income - taxes - necessities

15   Danaseb     2012 Mar 20, 7:57pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

This chart is a farce, when you consider the cost real food in most areas its just as expensive as ever anywhere. This chart just maps out our reliance of low grade processed shit that our great great grandparents would hesitate to feed to their livestock.

Besides i find a unquietly American disease to justify current deficiencies with past ones. Saying things are just fine and could not stand improvement as they are, in regards to any facet in our life, is actively standing in the way of human progress.

Look at any repugnicunt's speech as of recently, it always devolved down into "What Americans really need is to get off the state bottle and pry dry grass from the ground to stave off starvation, just like my fictional granddaddy in the depression." No thats what North Koreans get to do and is just what you want for most of us in this country.

16   mdovell     2012 Mar 20, 11:00pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

This isn't THAT much of a surprise when you consider a few things.

1) Food can be established as a commodity. Various monocultures like corn, soybeans, wheat etc

2) There is money to be made as an economy develops

3) Post ww 2 independence for much of asia and africa led to higher production.

4) Higher efficiencies meant that automation could make things much more cheaper. Try making your own orange juice for the same price as a jug in the supermarket..probably cannot be done.

5) There are corners cut. There was no "pink slime" in the past or HFCS pre 1970s. But then again it all depends as to what "food" is.

Of course on a microlevel things can be totally different. The city of Detroit for example has no real full supermarkets. It's mostly convience stores. Although they are getting a Whole Foods pretty soon.

17   Nomograph     2012 Mar 21, 12:12am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

TPB says

what a blind assertion crock of crap those graphs are.

I'd like to see a graph of TPB's weed and beer expenditures vs. time.

18   iwog   1504/1505 = 99% civil   2012 Mar 21, 12:17am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

TPB says

Yeah but at least back then the poor could go out into a field and bash gophers on the head and roast them up to perfection, with out the Liberal animal abuse brigade coming down on them.

Wouldn't it be nice if some of your points were actually true?

It's entirely legal to bash gophers over the head and roast them up to perfection. It would be totally pointless because of the glut of free food available, but it's certainly legal.

The price of food has dropped because of modern farming technology, cheap fuel, automation, and those Mexicans that your team wants deported.

19   elliemae     2012 Mar 21, 12:34am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Danaseb says

This chart just maps out our reliance of low grade processed shit that our great great grandparents would hesitate to feed to their livestock.

If our great-great-grandparents would hesitate to eat our fast food, why is it that in every movie where people come from the past they LOVE fast food? (Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, for example).I would submit to you that this is proof enough that our great-great grandparents would eat the shit up.

My reasoning makes as much sense as some of these graphs, if not more. You're welcome.

20   TPB     2012 Mar 21, 12:46am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Danaseb says

This chart is a farce, when you consider the cost real food in most areas its just as expensive as ever anywhere.

That's like the inflation calculator the Obama spin team put up.
They reckon that since 1999 $5.00 still has the buying power of $6.83 in 2012 money. I guess that's why the Bernake keeps saying there is no real inflation.

Because that 1999 $5.00 can still buy $6.83 worth of computers and other hard goods, but they don't say anything about that 1999 $5.00 can't buy $15.00 in food or $15.00 in gas.

21   TwoScoopsMcGee   1229/1229 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 21, 12:59am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

TMAC54 says

Hey T-Lips. How else are we supposed to keep up with these hungry people ?

Please read my post again - end commodity agriculture; most of the corn and soy we grow rots or burns, unsold and unconsumed, not used by humans as food or as byproducts for chemical purposes (Ethanol, Cosmetics, etc.), or even for feedlot animals. Big Agra pockets subsidies dependent on how much they grow, so they get paid whether there is a demand for the produce or not.

This ties up vast tracts of grassland better suited for raising cattle, which is what it would be used for if we didn't subsidize commodity agriculture.

The problem of "Growing enough food" is a false one. The problem is one of distribution, not production, like the Great Ethiopian Famine of the 80s, which was caused by Civil War and a "resettlement" policy of the then marxist-government, which decided to move peasants in the middle of the growing season.

One reason we have so many fat poor and working class people is because corn, soy, and starchy food products are dirt cheap, but fattening (fat in food != fat on your body). Whereas healthier shit like grass-fed lean beef, free-range chicken, apples, oranges, lettuce, broccoli, etc. is much more expensive -- because we've lost local produce to suburban sprawl and it all has to be imported. Many of these foods do not lend themselves well to large-scale machine-driven agriculture. Tomatoes are the best example. The varieties planted are chosen for their thick skins for transport, rather than their flavor. They're also picked green, and while the redden in transit they don't convert the cellulose inside into deliciousness because they didn't ripen on the vine.

Our diabetic epidemic is not explained by people eating too much meat. Meat doesn't make you produce insulin. Sugar and Starch does.

22   TwoScoopsMcGee   1229/1229 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 21, 1:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

mdovell says

5) There are corners cut. There was no "pink slime" in the past or HFCS pre 1970s. But then again it all depends as to what "food" is.

Yes, prior to 2002, "Pink Slime" was fit only for dog food by the USDA.

Unskilled, non-unionized workers make a lot of mistakes, and meatpackers wanted to sweep their mistakes off the floor and put it back in the beef

One other question is, how do they control for minced brains and anuses that fall on the factory floor and separate it from the other "lean beef trim" when they sweep it up?

23   DaveM_Renter     2012 Mar 21, 2:18am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Try to buy some healthy food, not genetically modified or hormone saturated crap - and then tell me if you still think it got cheaper!

24   TPB     2012 Mar 21, 3:38am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

DaveM_Renter says

Try to buy some healthy food, not genetically modified or hormone saturated crap - and then tell me if you still think it got cheaper!

Quoting because I can't +100.

25   zzyzzx   570/570 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 21, 5:10am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

It's entirely legal to bash gophers over the head and roast them up to perfection. It would be totally pointless because of the glut of free food available, but it's certainly legal.

Try doing that to some of the excess geese around here and we'll see how that works out.

26   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 21, 5:12am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

TPB says

hat a blind assertion crock of crap those graphs are.

Danaseb says

This chart is a farce, when you consider the cost real food in most areas its just as expensive as ever anywhere. This chart just maps out our reliance of low grade processed shit that our great great grandparents would hesitate to feed to their livestock.

Like I said,
Dan8267 says

Historically speaking, food in America is dirt cheap. It's largely unhealthy, but it's cheap.

The fact is that for all the evils of factory farming (animal suffering, pollution, unhealthy food), the fact remains that Americans today spend far less of their income on food than our grand-parents did. Every single study ever done has confirmed this.

Factory farms and mass produced food has economies of scale which allow us to grow more food with fewer farmers. There are many problems with our food system, but cost is not one of them.

27   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 21, 5:32am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

DaveM_Renter says

Try to buy some healthy food, not genetically modified or hormone saturated crap - and then tell me if you still think it got cheaper!

You're comparing apples to oranges. Even in the early 20th century, farmers used pesticides. Now, if you want to compare the cost of organic milk in the 17th century to organic milk in the 21st century, our organic milk is still cheaper.

Of course, you're still paying a premium due to the marketing of organic milk that has nothing to do with its cost of production or its health benefits. Simply put, you are being taken advantage of by marketers who are preying on your irrational fears of genetic engineering and anything "artificial".

Now, if we compare regular milk today versus the price in the 19-teens, we can see that milk is way cheaper today. The price of a quart of milk was about $0.10 during the 19-teens according to the Monthly Labor Review, July 1919. This translates to about $1.98 in 2010 or twice what you would pay for a quart of milk today.

Now, the data is based on average cost of living, not unusually expensive places like LA or NYC. But the cost of living adjustment for those places should be applied to both costs to make a fair comparison, so it's a wash.

We can repeat this experiment with just about any food and get the same result. People today have no idea how expensive food was in the past. They think the past started in the 1950s with refrigeration, frozen food, electricity, the HTS, and all the other modern inventions that keep food cheap.

Food used to be one of the largest costs of living, and in some places and times it was the largest cost exceeding even shelter. Today, shelter, healthcare, education, and transportation (purchase, maintenance, fuel, insurance) are the largest costs of living.

28   CL   50/50 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 21, 9:15am  ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

One other question is, how do they control for minced brains and anuses that fall on the factory floor

Those ingredients are placed on a vise-like apparatus and squeezed until a paste is expressed. Those contents are then forced into sheaths, usually intestines. Finally, the assembled links are put into packages and eventually become what's known as "Teapublicans".

Hope this helps!

29   TwoScoopsMcGee   1229/1229 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 21, 9:57am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

CL says

Those ingredients are placed on a vise-like apparatus and squeezed until a paste is expressed. Those contents are then forced into sheaths, usually intestines. Finally, the assembled links are put into packages and eventually become what's known as "Teapublicans".

Oh, Man. LOL

30   TPB     2012 Mar 21, 10:30am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

Factory farms and mass produced food has economies of scale which allow us to grow more food with fewer farmers. There are many problems with our food system, but cost is not one of them.

That's called cornering the market, and NO it's not a good thing. That's how you get $2.00 5lb potatoes and a $3.00 tomato.

31   elliemae     2012 Mar 21, 11:04am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

CL says

Those ingredients are placed on a vise-like apparatus and squeezed until a paste is expressed. Those contents are then forced into sheaths, usually intestines. Finally, the assembled links are put into packages and eventually become what's known as "Teapublicans".

Someone needs to tell Patrick that we need an "I really, truly, absolutely with all my heart & soul LOVE that post!"

Have you seen the bumperstickers that say, "Don't renig..." about Obama? I hope he thinks they're as funny as I do. Offensive, inappropriate and did I mention offensive? But it made me laugh.

32   thomas.wong1986     2012 Mar 21, 2:59pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

thunderlips11 says

Yes, prior to 2002, "Pink Slime" was fit only for dog food by the USDA.
Unskilled, non-unionized workers make a lot of mistakes, and meatpackers wanted to sweep their mistakes off the floor and put it back in the beef
One other question is, how do they control for minced brains and anuses that fall on the factory floor and separate it from the other "lean beef trim" when they sweep it up?

Isnt Technology wonderful... ever eat Italian Tripe, British Spam, Chicken Feet, Pig Feet, Snout, Brain, Goose Liver ( French Foie gras) and the filipino favorite balut.

If you can handle balut ?

33   thomas.wong1986     2012 Mar 21, 3:07pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Mexican cuisine.. Is it any different ?

Cabeza - is a Spanish language word meaning literally "head", used in Mexico to describe the meat from a roasted head of a cow, served in a taco or burrito. In Mexico, typically, the whole head will sit on a steamer or grill, and optimally, customers may ask for particular parts of the head meat they favor, such as ojo (eye), oreja (ear), or mejilla (cheek).

Lengua - Beef tongue literally the tongue of a cow. Widely used in certain types of ethnic cooking, such as German cuisine and Mexican cuisine, often seen in tacos and burritos. Beef tongue is nearly pure muscle and therefore is very high in protein and low in fat, however it requires long cooking times at low temperatures to render it tender enough to eat.

Chapulines - is a Spanish language word for grasshoppers of the species Sphenarium. They are considered a delicacy by many Mexicans. They are collected only at certain times of year. They are thoroughly cleaned and washed out, then fried with chiles, garlic and lemon juice, to create a sour-spicy-salty taste that is a good complement for beer...

Escamoles - are the larvae of ants of the genus Liometopum, harvested from the roots of the agave (tequila) or maguey (mezcal) plant in Mexico. In some forms of Mexican cuisine, escamoles are considered a delicacy and are sometimes referred to as "insect caviar".

34   Honest Abe     2012 Mar 23, 2:03pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Sign in NY Deli: "Our Tongue Sandwich's speak for themselves".

35   gromitmpl     2012 Mar 23, 2:41pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

elliemae says

Yes, I can see how it would be this administration's fault that the worst economic recession of our lifetime began in 2007 after a conservative republican administration was in office for eight long, long years.

George Bush a conservative republican? Seriously?

36   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 23, 7:33pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

gromitmpl says

George Bush a conservative republican? Seriously?

Bush is a social conservative, i.e., bigot. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Few Republicans today are.

37   gromitmpl     2012 Mar 24, 2:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

a social conservative, i.e., bigot

O great. Social conservative = bigot. That itself is a fairly intolerant position.

Bush was conservative in some respects but he was a bit squishy on many social issues. Not all that conservative.

38   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 24, 3:32pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

gromitmpl says

O great. Social conservative = bigot. That itself is a fairly intolerant position.

Acknowledging the truth is never an intolerant position. But in case you have been sleeping the past two hundred years, let's take a look at what social conservatism has meant in America from 1789-2012.

Social Conservative Beliefs

1. The negro is an inferior race and should be enslaved to the white man as god intended. 1789 to 1865

2. The negro is three-fifths of a person and should be counted when assigning delegates but not allowed to vote. 1789-1870

3. The federal government has given negros the right to vote. But there should be a poll tax to discourage them from doing so
1890s

4. Men should beat their wives if they are disobedient. 1789 to 1960s.

5. No black man should be allowed to marry a white woman. 1789 to 1980.

6. No gays or lesbians should be allowed to marry a person of the same sex. 1990s to 2012.

7. Homosexuality is an abomination and the bible says that we are to kill homosexual men. 1789 to 1950s.

8. Homosexuality must be punishable by law. 1950s to 1990s And it only stopped due to federal hate-crime laws and anti-discrimination laws.

9. Black and whites must be segregated in restaurants, water fountains, bathrooms, and schools. 1865 to 1950s.

10. Interracial marriage may be allowed because of federal laws, but there should be no interracial romance on television or the movies. 1950s to 1970s

11. All Muslims are all terrorists. 2001 to 2012

12. People foreign sounding names can't be president. 1789 to 2012

13. Mexicans are inferior just like blacks were. 1960s to 2012

14. Going to war to steal resources from dark skins and Muslims is OK. 2001 to 2012

Need I go on? Social conservationism has a very long and detail history of bigotry and xenophobia to the point of being nothing but an euphemism for bigot.

And the south was wrong about slavery, the Civil War, poll taxes, interracial marriages, segregation, and gay bashing. It just can never admit it was wrong.

39   clambo     2012 Mar 24, 4:25pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Where I live everyone is on the take one way or another. Your neighborhood may vary.
My friend built a legal granny unit and his tenant recently got sec. 8 to pay her rent for her. She got laid off, she's about 50 and got financial aid to UCSC. Her father recently died, so she got an inheritance. She told me she got FOOD stamps because they only considered her income not her net worth. I was astounded and she said so was she.
Meanwhile my friend raised her rent because Sec. 8 pays it. He also has two kids in college for free at UC and they are lurching through, 23 and 21 years old. He reports no income from his business since it's mostly cash and paypal. He loves doing his taxes so he gets the "earned income credit" meaning he is paid by US about $4000 CASH by Uncle Sam. To his credit, he is not on food stamps.
My other friend's girlfriend is on food stamps. She works part time under the table.
Another girl I know ran away to Santa Cruz when she was about 17. She has never worked. She got mixed up in Mexicans and drugs, which resulted in her being put into the system. She is now on SSI because she said she is "bipolar". Funny, I know others who work and have lives but have this same diagnosis.
Another woman who was my friend's ex girlfriend is on everything: she has SSI, and lives in a nice apartment in Capitola for "seniors" since she is over 50. She was diagnosed somehow as a nut because she flipped out when her younger, rich and successful boyfriend dumped her.
Her older brother is unemployed and is going to get SSI for his "bad back" because he is unable to find another job. He evidently hurt his back from his previous desk job.
Of course, I won't go into all of my illegal alien friends who use their ITIN and file for the earned income credit and therefore get all of their withholding returned to them, so they pay no income tax.
The giant welfare state is growing and will consume our economy if it isn't cut off.

40   clambo     2012 Mar 24, 4:28pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Poor Dan you must hate living in the south.

41   elliemae     2012 Mar 25, 2:39am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

clambo says

She is now on SSI because she said she is "bipolar"... Another woman ...was diagnosed somehow as a nut because she flipped out when her younger, rich and successful boyfriend dumped her... Her older brother is unemployed and is going to get SSI for his "bad back" because he is unable to find another job. He evidently hurt his back from his previous desk job.

The system isn't perfect and yes, some people do get benefits when they're not truly disabled. However, being mentally disabled is an actual disability. You can't fake "bipolar" unless you've go physicians who lie for you and the hearing judges are stupid. Being bipolar is a real disease - and unless it's treated with meds you're completely unemployable. With medications you might be able to hold a job, but since the meds and treatment are so expensive the only way to get them are to receive Medicaid and SSI.

Many people with back injuries work. Many can't, and probably never will again.

One of the SSI cases I had that totally pissed me off was a child molester discharged from prison after a 10 year sentence, 61 years old, who was approved for SSI simply because he was unemployable. There was nothing wrong with him other than his obvious love for children... He received public housing in a senior building, SSI and Medicaid. This was in the 80's during the Reagan years.

There are diseases that render people unable to function much of the time, yet they can appear just fine at times.

clambo says

The giant welfare state is growing and will consume our economy if it isn't cut off.

We should take another look at all types of welfare - including corporate welfare and military spending.

But to assume that you know or understand someone's disability is rather mean, considering that you don't live inside their bodies.

42   gromitmpl     2012 Mar 25, 4:43am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

Acknowledging the truth is never an intolerant position. But in case you have been sleeping the past two hundred years, let's take a look at what social conservatism has meant in America from 1789-2012.

Social Conservative Beliefs

1. The negro is an inferior race and should be enslaved to the white man as god intended. 1789 to 1865

2. The negro is three-fifths of a person and should be counted when assigning delegates but not allowed to vote. 1789-1870
........................

Slow down hoss. You are really rewriting history there. What a load of crock. I don't know what history books you are reading but the democratic party and liberalism in particular is the ideological forfather of most of those ills you mention. Yes - the deep democratic south of old. You need to speak to the former democrat Senator, grand KKK dragon wizard, Robert Bird.

I would say nice try but your so far off base in lala land that its not even a good attempt at tracing the lineage of conservatism.

I think really your just trying to bring up the homosexual issue. Equating being black with being a homosexual. Un freaking believable!!!!!

Ill educate you a bit on that issue. Conservatives recognize that same sex "sex" is immoral. We also recognize that hatred of other people is immoral. So no - conservatives do not (insofar as they are being conservative) hate anyone, we do not hate homosexuals. We do hate how the left lies though and we are willing to educate others about the immorality of certain things, including homosexual sex.

By the way - did you know that throughout history homosexual sex has been considered a crime by just about every civilized (and uncivilized) nation or other political entity. As a historical matter it is only the tiniest minority of people who have ever argued that sexual interaction between two people of the same sex is "OK" let alone "good".

If you want to argue the homosexual sex is a good the burden is on you my friend.

43   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 25, 12:40pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

clambo says

Poor Dan you must hate living in the south.

I don't live in the south. I live in south Florida, which is the north. North Florida is the south.

Florida's a microcosm of the United States, but flipped upside down. Miami is more like NYC than it is like any city in the south. The pan-handle, however, is just like Georgia.

But yes, I would probably hate living in the south because of all the close minded bigotry, xenophobia, corrupt small town sheriffs that hate outsiders, and small-town gossip.

However, I do have a great appreciation for red-neck engineering. That's kind of cool. And I do listen to country music.

http://www.smokersclubcomedy.com/redneck/rnalarm.jpg

http://funstufftosee.com/images/redneckalbum/ATT2.jpg

http://funstufftosee.com/images/redneckalbum/ATTB.jpg

And my favorite...

44   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 25, 1:10pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

gromitmpl says

Slow down hoss. You are really rewriting history there. What a load of crock. I don't know what history books you are reading but the democratic party and liberalism in particular is the ideological forfather of most of those ills you mention. Yes - the deep democratic south of old. You need to speak to the former democrat Senator, grand KKK dragon wizard, Robert Bird.

1. Everything I said in the list above is factually accurate. I never rewrite history. In fact, that's what I find so repugnant about Wikipedia.

2. I listed the beliefs of "social conservatives", not Democrats or Republicans. And yes, that is what social conservatives have believed in during the past 200+ years.

3. True, the Democratic Party used to be the party of social conservatives and the Republican Party used to be the party of social liberals. But that all changed in the 1960s with LBJ, Nixon, and Goldwater. Today, the opposite is true.

4. Yes, the Democrats used to be evil when they were made up of social conservatives. Strom Thurmond, that evil bigot who filibustered the Civil Rights Act in the 1950s, was a Democrat when he did so. He became a Republican when LBJ saw that racism was a dead end politically and started passing civil rights legislation. At that time, all the social conservatives fled the Democratic Party and enter the Republican ranks. The two parties switched roles and have remained that way since.

gromitmpl says

I would say nice try but your so far off base in lala land that its not even a good attempt at tracing the lineage of conservatism.

Social conservatism has its roots in slavery and religious intolerance. It has always been xenophobic and that is it's defining characteristic. It is tribal.

Other types of conservatism are not in any way related to social conservatism. Fiscal conservatives are typically rich godless assholes who sniff cocaine off of a hooker's ass. They aren't social conservatives at all. The strange marriage between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is simply due to the fiscal conservatives giving dumb, poor bigots a god podium in exchange for being able to siphon all the wealth in society and keeping the masses powerless.

Political conservatives, i.e. small government people, are always social liberals almost by definition. They believe in minimal government which means no anti-sex laws, no anti-gay laws, no anti-sodomy laws, no race laws, no government intrusion into the bedroom of consenting adults.

gromitmpl says

I think really your just trying to bring up the homosexual issue. Equating being black with being a homosexual. Un freaking believable!!!!!

I don't know what you mean by "equating being black with being a homosexual", but I will state unequivocally that the trials and injustices that homosexuals have had to face in this country paralleled those that African Americans have faced quite well, especially in the matters of interracial and gay marriage.

In any case, homosexuals should be equal under law to heterosexuals with absolutely no exceptions. To deny this is to disagree with the very founding principle of our country: "all men are created equal". It is Unamerican to deny the equality of homosexuals.

gromitmpl says

By the way - did you know that throughout history homosexual sex has been considered a crime by just about every civilized (and uncivilized) nation or other political entity. As a historical matter it is only the tiniest minority of people who have ever argued that sexual interaction between two people of the same sex is "OK" let alone "good".

Most civilizations in history have outlawed homosexuality, therefore homosexuality should be outlawed. This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Common Practice.

Most civilizations in history have considered women to be the property of their husbands. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have allowed slavery. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have taxed the masses greatly. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have only allowed the state-sponsored religion. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have been polytheistic. Does that mean we should do so?

Do you see where your argument has gone astray?

Can you honestly make an argument that homosexuality should be banned or that homosexuality is harmful to society? I've certainly have shown time and again how xenophobia and the use of state force to sponsor a single religion is bad.

gromitmpl says

If you want to argue the homosexual sex is a good the burden is on you my friend.

I have never argued that homosexual sex is good, or that heterosexual sex is good, or that sex is good. Nor am I interested in arguing that. That is a subjective matter.

I have argued that the state has no business or right to interfere in the sexual or romantic relationships of consenting adults. And that argument is based on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is also protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution which grants us freedom of religion, which includes the freedom not to have religious dogma forced upon us.

Furthermore, it is protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteen Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Finally, I argue that no person has the right to use force, including the force of law, to in any way to force his own arbitrary opinions onto another person. The law should do one and only one thing: protect rights. Any law that does anything other than protecting rights is a bad law.

45   gromitmpl     2012 Mar 26, 3:33am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

4. Yes, the Democrats used to be evil when they were made up of social conservatives. Strom Thurmond, that evil bigot who filibustered the Civil Rights Act in the 1950s, was a Democrat when he did so. He became a Republican when LBJ saw that racism was a dead end politically and started passing civil rights legislation. At that time, all the social conservatives fled the Democratic Party and enter the Republican ranks. The two parties switched roles and have remained that way since.

Twilight zone time!

46   zzyzzx   570/570 = 100% civil   2012 Mar 26, 4:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

This is a problem that is easy enough to solve, just make it way more difficult to get on food stamps.

47   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 26, 9:15am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

gromitmpl says

Twilight zone time!

Is this your way of refuting these facts?

48   gromitmpl     2012 Mar 26, 10:43am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Dan8267 says

Is this your way of refuting these facts?

You have not said anything factual. Your tracing of the ideological ancestry of the conservative movement is totally fictional. If anything it is the ideological ancestors of present day liberals who were the slave traders, the segregationists and all the rest.

Conservatives believe in those natural law principles that are the foundation of our country. These principles are enunciated in the Declaration of Independence
, and are rooted in nature. For instance it is a conservative principle that all men are created equal. Im not exactly sure how that squares with your misunderstanding of "social conservatives". Really I think you are just equivocating.

49   Vicente     2012 Mar 27, 7:01am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

gromitmpl says

Conservatives believe in those natural law principles that are the foundation of our country.

Another poster termed them "regressives". I agree, "conservative" is a very poor label as they are "conservative" of historic practice only very selectively. They believe in strict interpretation of Constitution and Founders circa 1780's, oh except when it means Patriot Act and unlimited military funds, then let's forget it. This is always bizarre to me, as Founders were against large standing armies. Founders were also hostile to corporations after their negative experiences with the East India Company, while modern conservatives bend themselves into pretzels to turn this place into a corporatocracy.

Enough! You no longer get to use that word.

How about I call myself a Neo-Neo-Con. I'd like to turn back the clock only to the 1990's, when the biggest kerfluffle we could muster was a semen stain on an intern's dress.

50   Dan8267   2558/2590 = 98% civil   2012 Mar 27, 4:41pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

gromitmpl says

You have not said anything factual. Your tracing of the ideological ancestry of the conservative movement is totally fictional. If anything it is the ideological ancestors of present day liberals who were the slave traders, the segregationists and all the rest.

So let me get this straight. You are arguing that the North was responsible for slavery, not the South.

Do I even need to respond?

« First     « Previous     Comments 11-50 of 50     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home