# A view into the mind of the left



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/29/MNGUHOTSHD1.DTL

Thoughts?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JRR said:


> https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/29/MNGUHOTSHD1.DTL
> 
> Thoughts?


Seems like a person with conviction and integrity to 'walk their talk' to me. Those types of lefties never bothered me. I find there are just very few of them. Most of the lefties seem to be playing "liberal elite" these days.

I hope she stays safe over there.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Seems like a person with conviction and integrity to 'walk their talk' to me. Those types of lefties never bothered me. I find there are just very few of them. Most of the lefties seem to be playing "liberal elite" these days.
> 
> I hope she stays safe over there.


Much better than the mushy libs I mostly know.

The article is pretty endearing, her world is one that is far different from mine.


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

Regarding Ms. Stillwater's _*welfare*_, here's a clip from the San Francisco Chronicle article cited above:

"She's tired of getting news from TV journalists who throw on a khaki vest for a few photo ops before flying home first-class. *She has lived in Section 8 housing in Berkeley for 27 years*, and she saved for her $1,072 airline ticket the same way she has saved for other exploits. "


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The article certainly makes this woman sound quite eccentric and lovable. However, I think the fact she has limited contact with three of four of her children, none with her grandchildren...speaks to her character too. She lives in Section 8 housing, i.e. welfare, yet has time to go panhandle at liberal events. She has a Master's in urban planning (gee, I wonder how her tuition was paid), yet her only job mentioned was a secretary?

I am sorry, this woman is all I find wrong about modern day liberals (vs. Jeffersonian ones). Do I wish I had the free time to go travel like she does? I sure do. Why do I not? Because I am too damn busy working my butt off, paying taxes that FUND SECTION EIGHT HOUSING! I think her benefits should be cut off as obviously, we do not have a person that needs the help of society's safety net, something I do believe in, what we have here is a person leading a very carefree and Bohemian life making chumps of all us hard working folks footing her damn bills.

Edit:


> Money for Arabic translators? Unnecessary. "I've been all over the world," she said, "and you always find people who speak English."


Pretty ethnocentric thing to say. She is a "real" modern day liberal.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

POW! BAM! SOCK! Holy cliches Batman! Welfare, Left and Berkeley OH MY! THE WIFE knows about as much about section 8 housing in Berkeley as I do CORPORATE WELFARE housing for all the charming alpha males we periodically see trade black suits for orange jumpsuits. Stillwater's burden on my taxes is obviously greater than their thefts. I hope she gets the body armor that wasn't found, and known to be defective.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I do know something about Section 8*

It is supposed to be a temporary solution to help people transition off of welfare. Usually there is a work requirement, especially if the recipient does not have small children living in the home.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

agnash said:


> It is supposed to be a temporary solution to help people transition off of welfare. Usually there is a work requirement, especially if the recipient does not have small children living in the home.


I suppose in geologic terms, 27 years is "temporary". :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

As an aside to the story Welfare is certainly flawed, has it's share of people abusing the system and needs reform. Sadly, that reform is often geared to political expediency and making war on the most vulnerable segment of our society. Being on Welfare does not involve some monastic vow of silence and withdrawal from the national dialog. If we can give dead Playmates and bimbo socialites our attention, one Bizerekey koo koo won't wound our collective IDS.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Fair enough but but people on welfare who can save over a $1000 should use it towards other ends than to visit a violent war zone to make a political point.

Karl


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

All the abuses of the welfare system don't make me feel any better about also supporting this woman's lifestyle.


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

Kav said:


> POW! BAM! SOCK! Holy cliches Batman! Welfare, Left and Berkeley OH MY! THE WIFE knows about as much about section 8 housing in Berkeley as I do CORPORATE WELFARE housing for all the charming alpha males we periodically see trade black suits for orange jumpsuits. Stillwater's burden on my taxes is obviously greater than their thefts. I hope she gets the body armor that wasn't found, and known to be defective.


Persons like you, and there are too many, assume often and understand less. Kindly moderate your baseless claims, and modify your tasteless tone, so that I may return to my usual happy self. I know a good deal about Section 8 housing: a malevolent person from a faraway place* was installed next to my house, under the auspices of this program. I was consequently obliged to learn the intricacies of Section 8, in order to protect my home from the steady stream of drug-using scum that visited the woman on a serial basis. You will be pleased to know that I prevailed, Kav, because you are clearly a civilized and elegant fellow.

*Faraway place: a cushy area of Connecticut, where the section-eight case in question enjoyed a pampered childhood.
Like Berkeley, Santa Fé is rife with her _genre_ of old hippies. Most of them don't become drug-dealers and satanists, however.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> As an aside to the story Welfare is certainly flawed, has it's share of people abusing the system and needs reform. Sadly, that reform is often geared to political expediency and making war on the most vulnerable segment of our society. Being on Welfare does not involve some monastic vow of silence and withdrawal from the national dialog. If we can give dead Playmates and bimbo socialites our attention, one Bizerekey koo koo won't wound our collective IDS.


Kav:

Be sure to note I said above:



> I think her benefits should be cut off as obviously, we do not have a person that needs the help of society's safety net, *something I do believe in...*


People stumble, disasters happen. We need to have a safety net. However, this woman has obviously made a home in what was supposed to be a travellers' shelter along the way. As I said, I am fairly offended at her rather carefree Bohemian lifestyle whilst I slave away. My issue is not with Section 8 housing, my issue is a well educated, physically able woman spending 27 years there.


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

Don’t worry about Miss Stillwater,

The Communist-Ideal’s Daughter.

She may rant about how prices inflate,

But it’ll never affect her Section Eight!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Kav:
> 
> Be sure to note I said above:
> 
> People stumble, disasters happen. We need to have a safety net. However, this woman has obviously made a home in what was supposed to be a travellers' shelter along the way. As I said, I am fairly offended at her rather carefree Bohemian lifestyle whilst I slave away. My issue is not with Section 8 housing, my issue is a well educated, physically able woman spending 27 years there.


I think you're just pissed you can't do it and get away with it.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

From the London Review of Books, November 30, 2000: Hal Foster, _The Great US Election Disaster_:



> Thank God women have more sense than men; too bad there aren't more of them, or they can't vote twice. Bush rode squarely on the shoulders of 'white males', a group from which I would like to resign.


Does anyone know to whom one might submit such a resignation? I've been searching for the proper office or official for years, but with no luck so far.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I think you're just pissed you can't do it and get away with it.


I am not pissed off, but you are quite right, I could not live her life. I could not suck the government teat for 27 years, taking money that might help people that want a future. I could not father four children on four women and let them grow up in poverty. I could not beg liberal wing-nuts at liberal wing-nut rallies for money. I could not wear shyte that people have thrown on the street for clothing.

You nailed me Rip.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Does anyone know to whom one might submit such a resignation? I've been searching for the proper office or official for years, but with no luck so far.


I know quite a few good physicians, I am sure one could point you to a specialist in sex change operations if you would like to stop being a white male. PM me and I'll help make it happen.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

These links are always interesting reads. I just dislike the inevitable running to our positions like sailors dismissed from roll call on an aircraft carrier. Is there fault to find in her lifestyle? Yes, and again I must ask why we don't feel greater approbation in some corporate or government greedhead caught spending our tax dollars on lapdances or getting one way financial incentives to provide 36 minimum wage jobs pushing hotdogs at THEIR new stadium?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> These links are always interesting reads. I just dislike the inevitable running to our positions like sailors dismissed from roll call on an aircraft carrier. Is there fault to find in her lifestyle? Yes, and again I must ask why we don't feel greater approbation in some corporate or government greedhead caught spending our tax dollars on lapdances or getting one way financial incentives to provide 36 minimum wage jobs pushing hotdogs at THEIR new stadium?


To quote the world's ultimate bleeding heart liberal, "He that is without sin among you. let him first cast a stone at her."


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Is it safe to assume that one who admonishes others using this quote today practices what he preaches?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

As an alumni of Bizerkeley I know her persona to well. People, take a deep breath and think. Shes venturing out on another adventure. Only this time it's where the irishborn wife of an iraqi who converted, learned the language and worked to help her loved and adopted nation for decades was still murdered. I give her 72 hours before she realises shes not in Kansas anymore. I don't care what our political persuasions are. We all have these embaressments like some crazy aunt with ice cold hands we have to kiss every family reunion; Hilary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Col Bo Grietz , et al.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I know quite a few good physicians, I am sure one could point you to a specialist in sex change operations if you would like to stop being a white male. PM me and I'll help make it happen.


Sure, shoot me the name of your surgeon, along with that of the quack that performed your lobotomy. Without balls or brains I might begin to understand the Wayfaring Way of Knowledge. Christ, what an idiot.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Kav said:


> As an alumni of Bizerkeley I know her persona to well. .


Alumnus, Kav. As an alumnus, you're a member of the Berkeley alumni.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

As A PO8 I take liberty and pleasure in the rymn of alumni and Bizerekely. Far better men and women of letters have done much more grievous affronts to the King's English. I am also humbled by RIP's thoughtfull reference. Sadly, you deman that reference in a vulgar outburst. Wayfarer is playing a deadly gamble with coccidiodomycosis and another fungal ailment unique to pipers and you respond like a gay klingon because he twisted your moustache. Loosen up!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Kav said:


> As A PO8 I take liberty and pleasure in the rymn of alumni and Bizerekely. Far better men and women of letters have done much more grievous affronts to the King's English. I am also humbled by RIP's thoughtfull reference. Sadly, you deman that reference in a vulgar outburst. Wayfarer is playing a deadly gamble with coccidiodomycosis and another fungal ailment unique to pipers and you respond like a gay klingon because he twisted your moustache. Loosen up!


Rhyming "alumni" with "Bizerekely"? Whatever you say, mate. And there's certainly no need for you to adopt Wayfarer's idiocy; you've plenty of your own. But I'm just trolling now. Bugger off and all that.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Alumni-Bizerekel(eye) and I have yet to show the cold, dark oceanic depths of my idiocy. I've got more colours of thought than Andy's tie selection, more points than the swiss have knives. But my idiocy does not include a thread about some old hippie artifact from the 60s personal sillyness leading me to outbursts with a Tucson tooter of tunes over my manhood. You've got more buttons than a IBM calculator found guilty of miscegenation with a IPOD. Again, loosen up. We all have opinions and any proctologist will tell you what we also share in common.Like the brothers said in the 'Nam, " It don't mean sh#t" and then moved on.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I could not suck the government teat for 27 years, taking money that might help people that want a future.


Absolutely. She is obviously an educated woman who could surely support herself.

I guess she has no qualms taking a Section 8 place from a needy illiterate mum with a minimum wage job.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Sure, shoot me the name of your surgeon, along with that of the quack that performed your lobotomy. Without balls or brains I might begin to understand the Wayfaring Way of Knowledge. Christ, what an idiot.


I may be an idiot but at least I do not suffer from self-hate the way you have shared with us you do. I have a fine set of _cajones_ Lush and would never tell the world I wish I could remove myself from a subset of humans that have them, as you have just done. The only person that has stated his wish to be ball-less here is you. I would much rather have an idiot that knows who he is in my personal circle than a self-loathing jackass that can only be trusted to always make a bad situation worse.

I do love your reaction to revert to form and insult like a third grader when I offer to help take you up on your rather ass-tastic wish. Like a small child, you lash out at the adult world with all your tools when confronted with the idiocy of your stance. You are the perfect example of how a damaged child can become well educated, highly intelligent adult yet forever at odds with the society he so hates.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I may be an idiot but at least I do not suffer from self-hate the way you have shared with us you do. I have a fine set of _cajones_ Lush and would never tell the world I wish I could remove myself from a subset of humans that have them, as you have just done. The only person that has stated his wish to be ball-less here is you. I would much rather have an idiot that knows who he is in my personal circle than a self-loathing jackass that can only be trusted to always make a bad situation worse.
> 
> I do love your reaction to revert to form and insult like a third grader when I offer to help take you up on your rather ass-tastic wish. Like a small child, you lash out at the adult world with all your tools when confronted with the idiocy of your stance. You are the perfect example of how a damaged child can become well educated, highly intelligent adult yet forever at odds with the society he so hates.


Play nicely, children, or don't play at all!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Is it safe to assume that one who admonishes others using this quote today practices what he preaches?


This somehow negates the quote? I'm sure the Pharisees around Jesus tried this same lame sophistry.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Kav said:


> Yes, and again I must ask why we don't feel greater approbation in some corporate or government greedhead caught spending our tax dollars on lapdances or getting one way financial incentives to provide 36 minimum wage jobs pushing hotdogs at THEIR new stadium?


Because some, doubtless, aspire to this lifestyle.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

rip said:


> This somehow negates the quote? I'm sure the Pharisees around Jesus tried this same lame sophistry.


No, it simply asks you a question that you obviously don't want to answer, while you admonish some of us.

The Pharisees would have known that the clear answer to such a question of Him would be "yes". He walked the walk.

Your attempt to make yourself analogous to Jesus equals a clear "no", on your part, however.

Your attempt to stifle criticism of this woman, while criticizing those who do so, is ham-handed at best. And easily revealed as hypocritical.

It's always interesting to see who just throws around Bible quotes to suit their purpose.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> To quote the world's ultimate bleeding heart liberal, "He that is without sin among you. let him first cast a stone at her."


Did he not say also, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's"? She would be, in biblical terms, stealing from Ceasar, ergo Jesus would tell her to get her butt to work. In nothing I have ever read did he espouse one should steal from the taxpayers and not lead a productive life when one is capable of doing so.

Why are you defending this woman so rip?


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

*A classic liberal*

She's living the liberal agenda. Let the government support you through re-distribution of wealth. I used to be amused at liberals now they just annoy me like when all the Hollywood types kept saying how they were going to leave the country if Bush was re-elected. I'm STILL waiting for them to make good on that.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

If anyone is interested in a serious look into the mind of the Left:


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> If anyone is interested in a serious look into the mind of the Left:


And make no mistake: no one is, not when there's hay to be made by trading in silly stereotypes that make one feel warm and self righteous.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Did he not say also, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's"? She would be, in biblical terms, stealing from Ceasar, ergo Jesus would tell her to get her butt to work. In nothing I have ever read did he espouse one should steal from the taxpayers and not lead a productive life when one is capable of doing so.
> 
> Why are you defending this woman so rip?


This thread should be renamed "A view into the mind of the right(eous)". As far as my defending this woman, I don't, any more than Jesus was defending the adulterous woman. He was, as I am now, suggesting that those who attack her do so from a position of great hypocrisy, and judging from the response, it hit home; this is quite a raw nerve with many of you.

Since the very title of this thread sets it as Right against Left, I would just mention a few of those who stand on your side of the fence:
_Duke Cunningham
Mark Foley
Tom Delay
Bob Ney
"Scooter" Libby
Newt Gingrich_
And of course you could list just as many thieves of the public weal and trust on the other side of the fence, which I am sure you will do in an attempt to further obfuscate this thread; and will again, probably intentionally, miss (avoid) the point, which is, as clearly as it can be stated:* A house of Thieves calling a thief a thief is the absolute pinnacle of hypocricy.*

BTW, your quote is so out of context as to be laughable; it has to do with, and only to do with, whether a Christian should pay taxes. As far as the lifestyle advocated by Jesus, He advocated poverty and communism:

*" So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. "( Luke 14:33)

"If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:21)

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45)

"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 
And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4:34-37)*


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

There are plenty of bad apples on the left and there are plenty on the right.

A lot of scoundrels hide behind religion, also, this is true.

But stripping the politics away reveals that this woman is taking advantage of the system. 

I suppose a lot of business lobbyists on the right side of the spectrum do this with obscure tax breaks, too.

One sin does not justify the other, though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> This thread should be renamed "A view into the mind of the right(eous)". As far as my defending this woman, I don't, any more than Jesus was defending the adulterous woman. He was, as I am now, suggesting that those who attack her do so from a position of great hypocrisy, and judging from the response, it hit home; this is quite a raw nerve with many of you.


The only raw nerve this has hit in me is that hard working people have paid for this well educated (so one would have to assume intelligent), able bodied woman's life. You have made a claim people not falling into lock step with you are showing "great hypocrisy". Could you please enlighten me as to how I am being a hypocrite?



rip said:


> Since the very title of this thread sets it as Right against Left, I would just mention a few of those who stand on your side of the fence:
> _Duke Cunningham
> Mark Foley
> Tom Delay
> ...


Please do not tell me my "side of the fence" is. First, I have gone on at great lengths that I lack any religion. To quote Jesus is usually the tactic of the right. Displaying one's religion is also a usual "right wing" thing. You are doing that, not I. I can go on to list the usual catalogue of my differences with the people you have just listed, such as pro-abortion, legalizing drugs, free needle exchanges, civil unions, yada yada yada. If you are trying to paint me as a Repub you had better have a pretty damn broad brush with a thick coat of paint.


rip said:


> And of course you could list just as many thieves of the public weal and trust on the other side of the fence, which I am sure you will do in an attempt to further obfuscate this thread; and will again, probably intentionally, miss (avoid) the point, which is, as clearly as it can be stated:* A house of Thieves calling a thief a thief is the absolute pinnacle of hypocricy.*


Again, you have made a very nasty accusation. Back it up.


rip said:


> BTW, your quote is so out of context as to be laughable; it has to do with, and only to do with, whether a Christian should pay taxes. As far as the lifestyle advocated by Jesus, He advocated poverty and communism:
> 
> *" So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. "*( Luke 14:33)


I admit, I will lose the quoting Jesus game. I am not a religion freak so cannot quote Jesus endlessly. However, I will point out that this woman has not forsaken all. She has just forsaken honest work, she seems to be fine with staying in tax funded housing.


rip said:


> "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45)


Again, this woman has goods. She just did not pay for them is all.


rip said:


> "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,


She has a house. One the tax payers paid for.

This has become quite funny, as the odds of an aging Berkley welfare hippy being strongly Xtian is pretty much slim to none. I do believe they even showed her on a muslim prayer rug in the story. So rip, I guess now that you have so exhaustively explained your position, you will have no problem paying off my house for me? Maybe picking up my student loan too? Come now, give it all away, do not be a hypocrite.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Wayfarer has it right. It seems liberals have no problem spending other peoples money. I need a new car but none of the liberals I know are willing to help me out. Another one won't allow me to walk into his house and help myself to anything in his kitchen although he has no problem with illegal immigrants crossing our border and running up a 10 billion dollar a year tax bill. So much for the grass roots approach to entitlements for everyone.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Wayfarer has it right. It seems liberals have no problem spending other peoples money. I need a new car but none of the liberals I know are willing to help me out. Another one won't allow me to walk into his house and help myself to anything in his kitchen although he has no problem with illegal immigrants crossing our border and running up a 10 billion dollar a year tax bill. So much for the grass roots approach to entitlements for everyone.


As opposed to conservatives who seem to have no problem stealing other people's money.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The only raw nerve this has hit in me is that hard working people have paid for this well educated (so one would have to assume intelligent), able bodied woman's life. You have made a claim people not falling into lock step with you are showing "great hypocrisy". Could you please enlighten me as to how I am being a hypocrite?
> 
> Please do not tell me my "side of the fence" is. First, I have gone on at great lengths that I lack any religion. To quote Jesus is usually the tactic of the right. Displaying one's religion is also a usual "right wing" thing. You are doing that, not I. I can go on to list the usual catalogue of my differences with the people you have just listed, such as pro-abortion, legalizing drugs, free needle exchanges, civil unions, yada yada yada. If you are trying to paint me as a Repub you had better have a pretty damn broad brush with a thick coat of paint.
> 
> ...


This HAS become quite funny; the lengths to which these attackers will go to rationalize their untenable position, yet not one has addressed the initial issue of casting the first stone. From this I must assume that all of these posters are of perfect moral character, unblemished and fault-free.


----------



## augustin (Jan 19, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> However, I think the fact she has limited contact with three of four of her children, none with her grandchildren...speaks to her character too.


Pretty judgmental, aren't we? Until you can fill in the dots after grandchildren, this seems like precious little to cast aspersions on her character. Also uncorrelated with her politics. Where I live, I can take you to trailer parks where the parents reliably pull the Republican lever and where the boys are their own uncles. (Seriously.) And these people don't throw away their food stamps. Good people, wacko's and perverts are distributed across the political spectrum. Now if we want to take apart one of her columns, that's different thing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We've had some threads turn rather rancorous and I am guilty of participatiing. This one has turned into Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum agreeing to have a fight with a Greek chorus singing Abdul the Bulbar Amir. If anybody wins shall we have a missing man flight overhead, a cavalry horse with boots tied backwards and a pipe band playing Amazing Grace for the losers? I'd include a rifle salute, but then we'd get into gun control. And all over what, an unreconstructed Hippie from my old haunts where balding hippies are circled like balding musk oxen against the grey ghost wolves of change.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*section 8 housing*

There is evidently a misunderstanding about Section 8 housing.

It is government subsidized housing for low income households. It is not temporary shelter for poor people. The individual under discussion apparently qualifies for such housing. Most of us on the forum do not. Those of us who have mortgages and deduct the interest from our income taxes are, however, receiving a government housing subsidy.

Most western nations subsidize housing for some portion of their residents. The US is fairly niggardly in this regard when compared with the rest of the industrial world.

I understand some people's annoyance at the behavior of the individual under discussion. I think focussing on her housing subsidy is off the mark. For that matter, the exercise of name calling and liberal-bashing seem off the mark to me as would bashing right-wingers.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

augustin said:


> Pretty judgmental, aren't we?


Yes I am. It has been said that judgement is the function of a rational mind.



augustin said:


> Also uncorrelated with her politics. Where I live, I can take you to trailer parks where the parents reliably pull the Republican lever and where the boys are their own uncles. (Seriously.) And these people don't throw away their food stamps. Good people, wacko's and perverts are distributed across the political spectrum. Now if we want to take apart one of her columns, that's different thing.


I was pointing out the foibiles of liberals. If you wish to start a thread pointing out the foibiles of phoney conservatives, I will gladly contribute to that too.

This thread has become one huge logical fallacy as people saw a need to defend a well educated, able bodied woman that has lived in the government safety net for at least 27 years and admits to begging for money at Berkely liberal rallies. No sin of any Repub you can point out will change these facts. Start a thread picking on your favorite Repub/necon and I will gladly join in if warranted.


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

JRR said:


> https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/29/MNGUHOTSHD1.DTL
> 
> Thoughts?


We hate your freedom.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> We hate your freedom.


My Freedom?


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

JRR said:


> My Freedom?


As opposed to my irony.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> As opposed to my irony.


Ms Stillwater's freedom is the same as anyone's...

One's choices are one's chains


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

JRR said:


> Ms Stillwater's freedom is the same as anyone's...
> 
> One's choices are one's chains


Be close but not familiar; neither a borrower nor a lender be.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> Be close but not familiar; neither a borrower nor a lender be.


Reading works of fiction is a chain as well...

Cheers


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

lawyerdad said:


> We hate your freedom.


*ROFLMAO! *I wish I could tell you how difficult it was to type that.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> *ROFLMAO! *I wish I could tell you how difficult it was to type that.:icon_smile_big:


CB,

If you think that was Bush's true motive, well...I've a bridge for you.

Cheers


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

JRR said:


> CB,
> 
> If you think that was Bush's true motive, well...I've a bridge for you.
> 
> Cheers


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

Lushington said:


> From the London Review of Books, November 30, 2000: Hal Foster, _The Great US Election Disaster_:
> 
> Does anyone know to whom one might submit such a resignation? I've been searching for the proper office or official for years, but with no luck so far.


I think you need a surgeon, not an "official". Plus some hormone drugs.


----------



## lawyerdad (Feb 17, 2006)

JRR said:


> Reading works of fiction is a chain as well...
> 
> Cheers


It's not fiction, it's Shakespeare.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

lawyerdad said:


> I think you need a surgeon, not an "official". Plus some hormone drugs.


Oh boy, he gets upset when you notice his idiotic statements like that. That was the lad's manufactured reason to get upset with me in this thread. But then again, Lushie is my special friend so he might not take umbrage at your noticing his request for a sex change.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh boy, he gets upset when you notice his idiotic statements like that. That was the lad's manufactured reason to get upset with me in this thread. But then again, Lushie is my special friend so he might not take umbrage at your noticing his request for a sex change.


I told you Wayfarer, whoever built your cunte is fine with me. He or she did a great job.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lushington, your vulgarity brings new dimension to another anatomical orifice.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> I told you Wayfarer, whoever built your cunte is fine with me. He or she did a great job.


And again Lushie, the only person wanting a sex change here is you. Thanks for bringing things to a new low though. As you have told me, I am not in the same league as you, no one can race to the bottom quite like Lushie.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> no one can race to the bottom quite like Lushie.


Wayfarer,

You forget about YCKMWIA... the similarities are striking.

Sorry, did not realize this has been already discussed back in November.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=438982&postcount=15

Cheers


----------



## augustin (Jan 19, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> The only raw nerve this has hit in me is that hard working people have paid for this well educated (so one would have to assume intelligent), able bodied woman's life. You have made a claim people not falling into lock step with you are showing "great hypocrisy". Could you please enlighten me as to how I am being a hypocrite?
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


I can't resist pointing out that the biggest welfare queens in the US today are those who take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on their federal and (some) state income taxes. The bigger your house, the the bigger your subsidy. For many of us on this forum (including, I confess, me) it is surely greater than the Section 8 subsidy she receives.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

*'Christmas Story' director dies in crash*

'Christmas Story' director dies in crash 

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Film director Robert Clark, best known for the beloved holiday classic "A Christmas Story," was killed with his son Wednesday in a car wreck, the filmmaker's assistant and police said. 

Clark, 67, and son Ariel Hanrath-Clark, 22, were killed in the accident in Pacific Palisades, said Lyne Leavy, Clark's personal assistant.

The two men were in an Infiniti that collided head-on with a GMC Yukon around 2:30 a.m. PST, said Lt. Paul Vernon, a police spokesman. The driver of the other car was under the influence of alcohol and was driving without a license, Vernon said.

*The driver, Hector Velazquez-Nava, 24, of Los Angeles, remained hospitalized and will be booked for investigation of gross vehicular manslaughter after being treated, Vernon said. A female passenger in his car also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and released, police said.*

-------------------------

Anyone want to give me odds that Hector is an illegal alien doing the vehicular homicides that Americans can't be bothered doing?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Hector's waging his personal war on Christmas!

Look for the newsflash on Fox.



fenway said:


> 'Christmas Story' director dies in crash
> 
> By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press Writer
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

augustin said:


> I can't resist pointing out that the biggest welfare queens in the US today are those who take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on their federal and (some) state income taxes. The bigger your house, the the bigger your subsidy. For many of us on this forum (including, I confess, me) it is surely greater than the Section 8 subsidy she receives.


That is about the the biggest hunk of shyte I have ever seen. This little gem is one of the left's very favorite pieces of tripe.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

augustin said:


> I can't resist pointing out that the biggest welfare queens in the US today are those who take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on their federal and (some) state income taxes. The bigger your house, the the bigger your subsidy. For many of us on this forum (including, I confess, me) it is surely greater than the Section 8 subsidy she receives.


You should have resisted. All you have confessed is that you can't distinguish between: transfer payments, tax credits, and tax deductions.


----------



## augustin (Jan 19, 2007)

ksinc said:


> You should have resisted. All you have confessed is that you can't distinguish between: transfer payments, tax credits, and tax deductions.


Actually, I can. They're all different ways of accomplishing the same thing, which is the government handing out money to those they favor. Am I to believe that you do not favor direct section 8 housing subsidies to our Berkeley denizen, but that you would be happy if we gave her a tax credit? (Recall that she doesn't need to owe any taxes in order to get the credit. All she has to do is file.)

Wayfarer might note that our neighbors to the north, leftist enough to provide socialized medicine, even they don't subsidize homeowners through the tax code. "This little gem" is tripe of the right as well as of the left. Economists of almost all persuasions, left, center and especially the right, seem to think that the only sane income tax is a flat tax. Homeowner tax subsidies are certainly a big deviation from that.

Since you guys seem to like rebates, I can infer that you're happy with the earned income tax credit, HOPE scholarships, etc. I'm lefty enough to like the Hall-Rabushkin flat tax scheme, which was a blueprint for the proposed Armey-Shelby reform legislation and the Forbes tax platform

If I go on long enough, we will all be able to agree that tax policy is, above all else, boring.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

augustin said:


> Actually, I can. They're all different ways of accomplishing the same thing, which is the government handing out money to those they favor.


Since you are wrong, it appears you actually can not. They do not accomplish the same thing in different ways. Two are different ways the government gives money from one person to another person. One is a way the government lets a person keep more of their own money.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

augustin said:


> Since you guys seem to like rebates, I can infer that you're happy with the earned income tax credit ...


You can? How so? EITC is absolutely *NOT* a rebate.

rebate 
Definition 1

A partial refund following a purchase.

Definition 2 
For a bill of exchange, a discount that is offered if the bill is paid before maturity.

re·bate1 (rē'bāt') 
n.
A deduction from an amount to be paid or a return of part of an amount given in payment.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

augustin said:


> If I go on long enough, we will all be able to agree that tax policy is, above all else, boring.


I agree it's common to claim a subject is boring as a way to excuse a lack of understanding.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Since you are wrong, it appears you actually can not. They do not accomplish the same thing in different ways. Two are different ways the government gives money from one person to another person. One is a way the government lets a person keep more of their own money.


I'm not sure why this is difficult for him to grasp.
One is a handout. The other is a deduction at the end of the year on taxes that have already been paid. The government uses this money throughout the year, and then pays back any excess from this "loan" interest free to the taxpayer (tax refund).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

augustin said:


> They're all different ways of accomplishing the same thing, which is the government handing out money to those they favor.


There is key example which clearly exposes your underlying internalized paradigm. Taking less from me in taxes is not "handing out money". You keep wanting to conflate things and make out all money is in private hands merely because the government was kind enough not to require one to pay 100% of their earnings to them. I hope you can admit/see the difference, but my hopes are rather low.



augustin said:


> Wayfarer might note that our neighbors to the north, leftist enough to provide socialized medicine,


Actually, Wayfarer might note that you are in complete error and that Canada does not have socialized medicine. Another common myth in the US.



augustin said:


> Economists of almost all persuasions, left, center and especially the right, seem to think that the only sane income tax is a flat tax. Homeowner tax subsidies are certainly a big deviation from that.


Surprisingly, you got something correct here. You also got much wrong. Leftist economists tend to push "progressive" taxation. Also, merely because the mortgage deduction occurs in a progressive system, does not make it a government transfer payment, something that welfare is.



augustin said:


> Since you guys seem to like rebates, I can infer that you're happy with the earned income tax credit, HOPE scholarships, etc. I'm lefty enough to like the Hall-Rabushkin flat tax scheme, which was a blueprint for the proposed Armey-Shelby reform legislation and the Forbes tax platform
> 
> If I go on long enough, we will all be able to agree that tax policy is, above all else, boring.


It looks like ksinc is educating you on what a rebate is, so I shall leave him to it.

You are very good here augustin. You have obviously been paying attention to left wing talking points and they are often effective in further polarizing the disaffected and/or those incapable of cricital thinking. However, you have tried this faulty rhetoric on a group of people very accustomed to it. No Jedi mind-trick is going to work here.

Regards


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Since you are wrong, it appears you actually can not. They do not accomplish the same thing in different ways. Two are different ways the government gives money from one person to another person. *One is a way the government lets a person keep more of their own money*.





Wayfarer said:


> There is key example which clearly exposes your underlying internalized paradigm. Taking less from me in taxes is not "handing out money". *You keep wanting to conflate things and make out all money is in private hands merely because the government was kind enough not to require one to pay 100% of their earnings to them*. I hope you can admit/see the difference, but my hopes are rather low.
> 
> Actually, Wayfarer might note that you are in complete error and that Canada does not have socialized medicine. Another common myth in the US.
> 
> ...


Of course this depends on how much one accepts the premise that one is entitled to reap the benefits of what society offers and owe nothing in return. Once you realize *tinstaafl* and there is a debt to be paid to society for what it offers this argument folds like a cheap suit.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

clothesboy said:


> Of course this depends on how much one accepts the premise that one is entitled to reap the benefits of what society offers and owe nothing in return. Once you realize *tinstaafl* and there is a debt to be paid to society for what it offers this argument folds like a cheap suit.


No.

#1 You do not keep everything and owe nothing in return. So, your argument is the cheap suit here.

#2 Keeping more of your own money is not AFL. Unless you don't work for your money like the rest of us?

#3 There's no I in TNSTAAFL.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> Of course this depends on how much one accepts the premise that one is entitled to reap the benefits of what society offers and owe nothing in return. Once you realize *tinstaafl* and there is a debt to be paid to society for what it offers this argument folds like a cheap suit.


The only cheap rhetorical suit here is hanging off your shoulders like a wire hanger. The price of lunch has nothing to do with my statement you have highlighted unless you are telling me the "debt to be paid to society" is 100% of my earnings. Is this what you are stating, we all owe 100% of our earnings to society? I did not say I wish to pay zero taxes, I pointed out the falseness of the other absent poster's logic that we owe 100% of earnings as a tax burdern. You have attempted to put me in the stance of saying there is zero burden owed, a false representation of my logic. Further, you have folded my "government" into "society" as statement equivalents. I specifically used, and you even highlighted it, the word "government". Talk about cheap suits, it seems you have a rhetorical closet of them.

You have a habit of dropping pithy, meaningless things in the Interchange then not facing the fire of your comments. I invite you to actually engage for a change and reply.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> No.
> 
> #1 You do not keep everything and owe nothing in return. So, your argument is the cheap suit here.
> 
> ...


 This is the crux of the argument. It is only your money if you do not owe it.

3. Thanks.



Wayfarer said:


> The only cheap rhetorical suit here is hanging off your shoulders like a wire hanger. The price of lunch has nothing to do with my statement you have highlighted unless you are telling me the "debt to be paid to society" is 100% of my earnings. Is this what you are stating, we all owe 100% of our earnings to society? I did not say I wish to pay zero taxes, I pointed out the falseness of the other absent poster's logic that we owe 100% of earnings as a tax burdern. You have attempted to put me in the stance of saying there is zero burden owed, a false representation of my logic. Further, you have folded my "government" into "society" as statement equivalents. I specifically used, and you even highlighted it, the word "government". Talk about cheap suits, it seems you have a rhetorical closet of them.
> 
> *"You keep wanting to conflate things and make out all money is in private hands merely because the government was kind enough not to require one to pay 100% of their earnings to them*." Nobody even came close to making this argument.
> 
> ...


It might be worth hanging around (doubtful) if you actually engaged. Ignoring what people say while you destroy your own straw men is a waste of time. Pointing out that people owe a debt to society, while inconvenient for the "it's my money" mindset, is not meaningless. While you may disagree with the premise that you categorize it as worthless speaks volumes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

A reply! Good work!

1) Agustin did make that argument, inferring that any money I do not pay in taxes is "welfare" (his mortgage deduction argument).

2) By telling me my argument against Agustin "folds like a cheap suit" because we live in a society, you have also inferred the debt is 100%.

3) "Government" (my word") is not a statement equivalent of "society" (your word) but in your use, you have conflated them, a clear fallacy.

4) I have never dismissed that we live in a society and that we should have zero taxation. Please, and I do mean this, find a quote of me saying that. This shows how little you pay attention to my posts, as I have stated public education and universal healthcare are good things many times, amongst other things.

5) Point out where I stated or inferred that concept of TNSTAAL is worthless. While I am not a big Heinlein fan, I would have thought the concept would be self-obvious. It is actually the left that seems to believe the concept is meaningless.

I am happy to see you actually replied, but it was just as empty as the first I am afraid to say. Why do you not do this: tell me what your introduction of a no free lunch means in your mind. Why did you raise it? How does it relate to welfare? Does everyone carry the same debt to society? As opposed to vain attempts to disprove a sound position, why not put forth some of yours? Tell us *your* position vs. merely attacking others. Taking a stand involves much more than only attacking others.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> A reply! Good work!
> 
> 1) Agustin did make that argument, inferring that any money I do not pay in taxes is "welfare" (his mortgage deduction argument).
> 
> ...


2. Acknowledging we owe a debt to society infers the debt is 100%? This is nonsense. There is such a vast difference between what was written and your interpretation, and I don't think you're that stupid, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse.

3. We agree that government does not equal society. In a representative democracy Government (big G) is the elected proxy of the people.

4. *I have never dismissed that we live in a society and that we should have zero taxation*. Please, and I do mean this, find a quote of me saying that. This shows how little you pay attention to my posts, *as I have stated public education and universal healthcare are good things many times, amongst other things*. 
I don't understand your phrasing here. Have or have not dismissed that we should have zero taxation? 
Not in this post. Yes, I have not paid attention to what you have said in other posts as I am not sure that I have read these other posts. Really, you expect everyone to be familiar with everything you have written? (read as chiding not snarky)

1, 5. Once one accepts (and not accepting is unrealistic) that one actually owes a debt the whole, "they are taking my money" argument folds. If you owe money the money is not yours and your contention that a mortgage deduction is somehow different from any other handout has no basis. If I owe you $100 and you decide to forgive $20 of the debt that is no different than my paying you $100 and you deciding to give someone else $20. Or, if you prefer, if you tell me to give you $80 and $20 to ksinc, you have not taken my $20 and given it to ksinc because the $100 was not mine to begin with.

Conversely, if I hold that you giving ksinc $20 out of the $100 I paid is taking my money then I don't agree that there is a debt. You cannot, however, have it both ways.

I have a 3 a.m. wake up. Goodnight.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> Once one accepts (and not accepting is unrealistic) that one actually owes a debt the whole, "they are taking my money" argument folds. If you owe money the money is not yours and *your contention that a mortgage deduction is somehow different from any other handout has no basis.*


You too have just stated a tax deduction is the same as a "handout". I applaud you for finally stating something you hold as true but it is rather sad you have chosen to pick something patently false as that belief. Further, since you believe deductions are handouts, you actually have tacitly endorsed exactly what I said you did, that money not taken in taxes is in private hands merely because the government was kind enough not to take it. After all, any money not given in taxes, as you said, is a "handout".


----------



## Egdon Heath (Sep 11, 2006)

_Wayfarer _writes above:

"Agustin did make that argument, inferring that any money I do not pay in taxes is "welfare"."

You are using the word _infer_ incorrectly. You mean _imply._ Look it up. And while you're there, check out _gasbag_ and _blowhard_.

EgH


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Egdon Heath said:


> _Wayfarer _writes above:
> 
> "Agustin did make that argument, inferring that any money I do not pay in taxes is "welfare"."
> 
> ...


Oh, another fan! Bring it on doughboy. If the best you can do is criticize a marginal word choice by me then insult me for an introduction, you are going to be an entertaining piece of shyte! You would not be a certain ex-pat Scot living in BC would you?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Egdon Heath said:


> _Wayfarer _writes above:
> 
> "Agustin did make that argument, inferring that any money I do not pay in taxes is "welfare"."
> 
> ...


Oh, by the way, aside from insults, do you actually have a contribution to this thread?


----------

