46 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
...matters....that's why we must homogenize....to have diversity....(say what?!) that's the usual form of liberal double-speak.
And do you think that
personal responsibility is included in that equation or should either be a mandate by the Federal government? Equality is what women wanted back in the 60's with "Women's Lib" movements.....and now they treat each other like crap if they aren't on the 'correct' party side. Equality in education was what started the "Affirmative Action" in colleges for blacks, who got first pick even if they tested lower than their white counterparts....it still goes on in various other areas, including the job market. Some whites have filed lawsuits claiming "reverse discrimination" in order for job markets to fill 'quotas' even for city jobs like police and firemen just so the city can claim 'diversity'.
Does 'equality' actually equate to 'fairness' when so many don't even qualify and just assume they'll get in because they are 'entitled' to it?
Does "equity' really help anyone when others are forced into giving something of theirs to someone who doesn't have what they want? Shouldn't people be given the CHOICE to give freely or not give at all? Isn't THAT freedom in itself? Should college students who are distraught over the election results are allowed to bypass their tests and be given 'sanctuary' from their student loan debt, actually qualify to get a diploma or degree that they haven't worked to achieve or made an effort to get? BO is already getting ready to forgive over $100B in student loans....causing taxpayers who have had NOTHING to do with millions of students/strangers to be responsible for THEIR bill. Is THAT 'equity' in YOUR mind? Because in MY mind, it's a total ripoff by a slew of savvy kids who have figured out the system so they can continue to suck off the teat of the very people they despise and protest against every day....CAPITALISTS.
RE:savvy kids who have figured out the system so they can co
savvy kids who have figured out the system so they can continue to suck off the teat of the very people they despise and protest against every day....CAPITALISTS.
If only the parents could know what they were creating....Right TONI H?
Considering that you seem to be unable
to answer anything with logic and sane debate, I have to ask:
Is your comment a slam against MY parenting, or are you slamming my DAUGHTER's parenting? NONE of my children OR grandchildren are getting free rides for anything, JP, so if you are ASSuming as usual, you are wrong....as usual.
RE:Is your comment a slam against MY parenting,
Is your comment a slam against MY parenting, or are you slamming my DAUGHTER's parenting?
But now that you mention it...Didn't you say something about the grand-daughter not turning in assignments or writing exams and expecting credit for doing them? (figuring out the system)?
I was thinking of a few years ago when your hot topic was the Obamaphone, you knew some people (I think they were your friends or relatives, not sure) that had those phones and you were contemplating reporting them.
Equality is what women wanted back in the 60's with "Women's Lib" movements.....and now they treat each other like crap if they aren't on the 'correct' party side
What do you consider "like crap"?
Just like SOME men treat each other OR do you think it's only women that do that?
"But now that you mention it...Didn't you say something about the grand-daughter not turning in assignments or writing exams and expecting credit for doing them? (figuring out the system)?
NO...I said she was also getting paid to be an activist going door to door.....however, she is still going to school full time and taking her class exams. She was also thinking about leaving school and going to Europe to be an activist there, but I'm hopeful her mother will prevent that.
I was thinking of a few years ago when your hot topic was the Obamaphone, you knew some people (I think they were your friends or relatives, not sure) that had those phones and you were contemplating reporting them."
YES....in order to qualify for one of those free phones, you had to be unemployed and not have a landline available to you so as you were looking for work, potential employers could contact you. A few people I knew, although unemployed, had a landline so, in my opinion, they got the free phone fraudulently. My daughter also had a landline and got a STATE free phone (not Obamaphone) that she still has but was able to get that phone for free because her son Tommy is the one who had a stroke at 8 mos old and is disabled now and needed the free cell phone for emergency purposes since she is his permanent full time caregiver.
As for this: "Equality is what women wanted back in the 60's with "Women's Lib" movements.....and now they treat each other like crap if they aren't on the 'correct' party side
What do you consider "like crap"?
How about Madeline Albright's comment "all women who don't vote for hilLIARy will go to hell'? Or the Michelle dress designer refusing to outfit Melania? Or Madonna saying that women who voted for Trump are 'women who hate women'? Or NOW staying silent regarding liberal Dems talking about Republican women as traitors...and even worse if they are BLACK Republican Conservative women? Or standing behind that college woman during her 15 minutes of fame suing Georgetown University for not providing her with free birth control (I thought women were supposed to be 'strong and independent')? Where were they when they should have been condemning women who were giving false police claims against white men for rape (Duke University and the Rawley case and just recently the completely false reporting done against the Virginia college)?
And, again, you have NO comment
or material to debate with regarding my comments about your picture on 'equality/equity". Why is that, JP? When you have nothing to offer, you find SOMETHING/ANYTHING else to veer to, even if it is insulting. So tell me...just WHO you WERE directing your slam to? You couldn't even answer THAT one and instead said: NO! But now that you mention it
I wasn't the one who 'mentioned' it, JP.....YOU did.
RE:you find SOMETHING/ANYTHING else to veer to, even if it i
you find SOMETHING/ANYTHING else to veer to, even if it is insulting.
NOW you can be insulted(IF that's what it was)?
Anyways, I've had enough of "this" I'm "going dark" for a while.
That picture is a perfect example
of the phrase used to qualify the reason for giving assistance to someone in need. That phrase is; "through no fault of their own". Someone who, no matter how hard they may try, cannot achieve a goal that people of normal ability can deserves our help. But that which they deserve changes if they won't even try. OK with that?
Peering over the fence? That was stealing.
You do realize diversity and division come from the same root word? You must have division to have diversity. The opposite of diversity is uniformity. The Liberals speak of diversity, all while trying to enforce uniformity. They know not of what they speak. A homogenized populace is NOT a diverse populace. The truth is, they HATE diversity. It's just a catch word to fool the gullible into feeling good about it all while they work for division.
RE:You do realize diversity and division come from the same
You do realize diversity and division come from the same root word.
And "equity" and "equality" come from different root words?
Peering over the fence? That was stealing
They could just as easily have used as an example.... paying to be sitting in the grandstands with a tall person sitting in front of them wearing one of those "stovepipe hats", You remember them....
I've seen some sporting events where people are waving a flag at least 10 ft x 10 ft in front of the spectators...
And the people behind the flag
are cheering and clapping...........I prefer to watch an unfurled flag rather than someone kneeling out of disrespect for it.
This "flag waving" was going on
DURING the game...AFTER the Opening ceremonies.
See what happens
when you make flat statements, JP, without giving details along with it? That's called 'babble'
RE: See what happens?
People make ASSumptions?
It's Obamas fault YOU can't buy insurance in the state YOU live in but YOU could IF you lived in Florida?
You finally got it....
Because of a deal he personally cut with the Senate member (gone now) to get the vote he needed for Obamacare to pass, people in Florida were allowed to keep the same Humana Medicare Advantage plan that was no longer available in other States. That's not an assumption, JP....it's a FACT.
RE:it's a FACT
AND YOUR reason is an ASSumption...
RE:You finally got it....
I caught it from you?...is there a cure?
Your insanity has again
taken you hostage, JP. I gave you the FACTS as to the REASON my insurance coverage wasn't available anymore, but was/IS still available in Florida where there are millions more senior citizens living than in any other State, and that Senator needed their votes....BO needed that Senator's vote so he was 'bribed'. HOW is that an assumption in your opinion?
RE:where there are millions more senior citizens living than
where there are millions more senior citizens living than in any other State,
Millions of seniors? ALL paying for medical insurance?
THAT's MY argument....a large enough "base" to provide the service.
BO needed that Senator's vote so he was 'bribed'.
AND that Insurance company was lucky that those seniors bought insurance.
Coincidence?...I think not.
Looks like some other Floridians benefited from Obamacare
Speaking of Florida Senators, insurance and Obamacare
Senior citizens automatically get
Medicare, which IS health insurance, JP....many, like myself, bought the Advantage Plan that took Medicare and combined it into their own plan (which is why it was called Humana MEDICARE Advantage) so you had MORE coverage, such as glasses and dental. You no longer used your Medicare card at doctors' offices and hospitals...you used your Human card instead. So Humana not only collected the Medicare premium you normally had taken from your Social Security check, but they collected their OWN premium, AND they collected subsidies from the Feds to cover any 'losses' from claims made. IF the Advantage Plan had also been taken away from Floridians like it was taken from all the rest of the States, seniors there, since there are so many of them, might have voted that Senator out, so YES, he was bribed so he could possibly keep his seat in the Senate and 'help' BO's agendas pass.
RE: he was bribed so he could possibly
Got a link to that "fact"?
RE: he was bribed so he could possibly
another way of saying
He was POSSIBLY bribed keep his seat in the Senate and 'help' BO's agendas pass?
SPECULATION?...I say YES!!!
Once you use the word "possibly"...you're speculating.....Deny all you want...
Look it up....
There was the "cornhusker deal' in Nebraska, there was the 'Louisiana purchase", et al...
There was plenty of publicity going around about all the deal making, arm twisting, blackmail, and outright lies in order to get those votes, JP, and stop pretending/acting as if you aren't aware of them......NONE of it was speculation....it was ALL FACT.
RE:Look it up....
I read your link...found THIS
Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.
YOU make the claim Medicare Advantage was ONLY available in Florida.
Reid was unapologetic. He argued that, by definition, legislating means deal making
Isn't TheRUMPs "claim to fame" that HE makes deals?
You thought you were getting change.
I saw that part....but Florida was the only one
that heavily made the news because of the bribery involved for the vote. Deals are one thing, JP....when you cut out huge swaths of society in order to secure a vote and only offer it to a small handful, that's bribery. Those three States were all represented in the Senate by Dems that BO desperately needed to complete his 'you have to vote for it to see what's in it' plan....Even the final nine or so holdouts had grouped together against it because they were against abortions being paid for by the coverage, and were told/lied to by BO that he would issue an EO to amend it if they voted for it (which he never did). http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/former-rep-bart-stupaks-betrayal-still-resonates-taxpayer-dollars-are-funding-abortions-2/
RE:Does anyone here disagree with this?
YES!!! I disagree.
Instead of saying
"They spend too much time focusing on what divides us."
HE should have said
"WE spend too much time focusing on what divides us."
You might be right if
Trump is and had been a part of "Washington". But if you mean "we, the people" I'd argue against it. This is about marketing tactics. Marketing is more about creating perception than it is about revealing reality. Creating perception is very much about using hyperbole. Washington does this by not considering people as individuals but by some label. You are a black, a white, a Christian, Jewish, male, female etc. They don't consider us as people who are black, white, etc. The word "person" or "people" is omitted from the label. I think Trump says that we're being put in boxes, this is what he means. We have not done this all by ourselves or to ourselves. Any division has been created with enormous help from politicians who, like marketers, are looking out for their interests instead of ours.
I'm sure most of us have our own prejudices and I admit to not being free of them. Prejudice is a perfectly normal response to personal experience but we have more than those experiences affecting us now. We have the government and media shaping our prejudices by flooding us with propaganda based on hyperbole. If one person of a specific label shows ill will to a person of another label, the labels alone are shown to define the attitudes of all of those "persons" who wear that label...be it willingly or unwillingly. Two neighbors of difference race can't have a disagreement without racism being cited. Persons in different boxes are targeted by politicians ways that either makes them friends of one another or enemies depending on the motive of the politician. Unfortunately, this seems less obvious to those on the extremes than to those on the fences.
Yes! Of course!
I'll read the msg later, maybe.
Posted under another name...maybe.
If the source of the quote was a different person...maybe as well.
If the source was a trusted friend...probably.
First we see if we can put the the source of the quote or source of the post in a box. If the label on the box pleases us, it matters not what is inside. No need to taste; it must be good.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)