Which type of Republican are you? How to self-identify.

Another variation on a theme: you live on third base and think you've hit a triple.

Terp, just keep paying your taxes so I can have free healthcare and 3/5ths of my ending salary as pension. Grandbaby needs a new pair of shoes.

Thanks for showing the true you.  I know I know.  You will gladly condone the violence if I don't comply.  I get it.  I get it.  

GL2 said:

Terp, just keep paying your taxes so I can have free healthcare and 3/5ths of my ending salary as pension. Grandbaby needs a new pair of shoes.

Well, I'm an old school union guy who - like so many current workers - longs for the days when unions allowed for a middle-class life. I vote left; I contribute left; I speak left. 

I've got mine but I still want others to have theirs.

Don't worry about the violence. The unionized police and unionized hospital workers will help you. 

That's a chart of total government spending, not federal spending. Why do libertarians care if Californians want to spend money on healthcare for poors? 

@GL2, what the hell do you know about terp and his compassion.  True charity is to give something without expecting anything in return for the gift.   Compelling others to provide funds (often using threats of force, even at the point of a gun) for what you, and your ilk, have defined as a necessity, is not compassion.  

IMHO, you (GL2) always operate utilizing the presumption that rich people are greedy and selfish; and if it were up to rich they would not give a dime of their money to the poor.  The reason many politicians love redistributing the wealth is because they believe that the beneficiaries of such largesse will re-elect the politician behind such redistribution, and also their party.

The above presumption that I have attributed to you (GL2) is consistent with the fact that you (GL2) utilize conflict theory to analyze society, groups in society, resolution of disputes between groups, etc.  The problem with using conflict theory as your primary means of analysis is that you will always need to gin up more conflicts to reinforce your primary means of analysis and narrative.

GL2 where was your compassion when NJ taxpayers were deprived of your tax revenues when you lived in PA (such deprivation based, GASP, on a tax loophole) and worked in NJ?  Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

GL2 said:

It's clearly a lack of compassion; social Darwinism; etc; whatever one calls it. It's usually able-bodied, white

folks with jobs and no present need for social services. I'm fine so fcuk everyone else.

@GL2, you are quite an astute unionist.   So astute that you were unaware, until I pointed it out to you, that it is illegal for NJ teachers to strike. 

GL2 said:

Well, I'm an old school union guy who - like so many current workers - longs for the days when unions allowed for a middle-class life. I vote left; I contribute left; I speak left. 

I've got mine but I still want others to have theirs.

Boy folks are in a nasty mood.

This thread makes me sad.

RobinHood said:

If you say so I guess it's true. I don't care to point out that in doing so, you only prove my point. But strategically speaking, that approach is clearly working against you. You want to insist you hold all the answers fine, but don't expect to win.

drummerboy said:

omigod you're such a moron.

RobinHood said:

Nope, they hate us because we are glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense moral and intellectual superiority in how we think and talk about their world view.

Robin,

It sounds like Mitt's view of the 47%. In reality it is not just "progressives" who fit that description. It is also CEOs of large corporations, the majority of wealthy people and many leaders of religious organizations. 

And certainly Mr. Trump is "glib, sarcastic, condescending and believes himself to be intellectually superior. That is why the joke is on those who were taken in by him. And the joke is not very funny.

Others can't have because the (collective) you, your generation, took an unsustainable amount, essentially taking from the future.

GL2 said:

Well, I'm an old school union guy who - like so many current workers - longs for the days when unions allowed for a middle-class life. I vote left; I contribute left; I speak left. 

I've got mine but I still want others to have theirs.

RealityForAll said:

@GL2, you are quite an astute unionist.   So astute that you were unaware, until I pointed it out to you, that it is illegal for NJ teachers to strike. 

GL2 said:

Well, I'm an old school union guy who - like so many current workers - longs for the days when unions allowed for a middle-class life. I vote left; I contribute left; I speak left. 

I've got mine but I still want others to have theirs.

I  know it's illegal. I was in two strikes and a boycott back in the day. Carol Graves of the Newark Teachers Union is a hero of mine.

LOST said:

Boy folks are in a nasty mood.

Oh yeah. But I do enjoy tweaking them. RFA, I also got my MA + 30 on your dime. The reward: A pay increment. So you paid for my grad ed and then gave me a raise. Sweet. "Look for the union label, when you are buying....."

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

As was my first comment on Terp. 

anybody ever listen to conservative talk radio?  Or watch Fox News?  When the hosts talk about liberals, they're glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense of moral and intellectual superiority in how they think and talk about liberals' world view. But I don't know any liberals who voted for Hillary Clinton because they were angry at being portrayed the way they are in conservative media.  

my conclusion is that the real "snowflakes" who need "safe spaces" to soothe their delicate feelings are the conservatives, not the liberals.  We're tougher than to let our feelings get hurt by what Rush or Hannity or Coulter are saying about us.  Perpetual victimhood is a strong characteristic of American conservatives.  

So in a sense, it is on us liberals for not understanding that our mean words about how dumb it would be to vote for Donald Trump backfired on us.  The folks in rural America were offended by that, and to show us, they voted for Trump.

I have to say though that if I was pissed off that a group of people were accusing me of being stupid, I wouldn't try to prove them wrong by shooting myself in the face.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/...

LOST said:

RobinHood said:

If you say so I guess it's true. I don't care to point out that in doing so, you only prove my point. But strategically speaking, that approach is clearly working against you. You want to insist you hold all the answers fine, but don't expect to win.

drummerboy said:

omigod you're such a moron.

RobinHood said:

Nope, they hate us because we are glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense moral and intellectual superiority in how we think and talk about their world view.

Robin,

It sounds like Mitt's view of the 47%. In reality it is not just "progressives" who fit that description. It is also CEOs of large corporations, the majority of wealthy people and many leaders of religious organizations. 

And certainly Mr. Trump is "glib, sarcastic, condescending and believes himself to be intellectually superior. That is why the joke is on those who were taken in by him. And the joke is not very funny.

I listen to right wing radio every day. Yesterday was a real gem. 

"Just 1/2 of 1% of all Americans will be impacted by the limitations placed on pre-existing conditions."

To put it another way - 1.6M people. 

Na.  You'd probably shout them down so they were unable to speak

ml1 said:

anybody ever listen to conservative talk radio?  Or watch Fox News?  When the hosts talk about liberals, they're glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense of moral and intellectual superiority in how they think and talk about liberals' world view. But I don't know any liberals who voted for Hillary Clinton because they were angry at being portrayed the way they are in conservative media.  

my conclusion is that the real "snowflakes" who need "safe spaces" to soothe their delicate feelings are the conservatives, not the liberals.  We're tougher than to let our feelings get hurt by what Rush or Hannity or Coulter are saying about us.  Perpetual victimhood is a strong characteristic of American conservatives.  

So in a sense, it is on us liberals for not understanding that our mean words about how dumb it would be to vote for Donald Trump backfired on us.  The folks in rural America were offended by that, and to show us, they voted for Trump.

I have to say though that if I was pissed off that a group of people were accusing me of being stupid, I wouldn't try to prove them wrong by shooting myself in the face.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/...

LOST said:

RobinHood said:

If you say so I guess it's true. I don't care to point out that in doing so, you only prove my point. But strategically speaking, that approach is clearly working against you. You want to insist you hold all the answers fine, but don't expect to win.

drummerboy said:

omigod you're such a moron.

RobinHood said:

Nope, they hate us because we are glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense moral and intellectual superiority in how we think and talk about their world view.

Robin,

It sounds like Mitt's view of the 47%. In reality it is not just "progressives" who fit that description. It is also CEOs of large corporations, the majority of wealthy people and many leaders of religious organizations. 

And certainly Mr. Trump is "glib, sarcastic, condescending and believes himself to be intellectually superior. That is why the joke is on those who were taken in by him. And the joke is not very funny.

Agreed.  We certainly are not listening to one another and the gap is widening as the vitriol from both sides grows.  And, yes, Limbaugh, Hannity and others are - in my opinion - seeking to fan the flames to enhance their own wealth and status.

However, it does appear that the election of Trump was not merely a function of rural vs. urban voters. According to NPR, [http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/...] although there is a clear and direct correlation between lower population density and support for Republicans, the reality is that the number of voters in rural areas is limited.  Thus, in order for Trump to have won, it required some degree of support from non-rural areas.  While the definition of rural is subjective, the statistics demonstrate that Trump also surpassed Clinton in population centers of 500K to 1 million, 250K to 500K, etc....which I don't consider to be "rural" [ http://www.citylab.com/politic... ]

As for race, gender, and geography, according to the Pew Center, while white men living in rural areas supported Trump over HRC by 48 points (72% to 24%), Trump also led Clinton by 32 points among all white men nationally (63% to 31%). And, it wasn't only males who supported Trump.  According to the Pew Research Center, while Trump garnered 62% of the votes of rural white women, he also had a 10-percentage-point advantage over Clinton among white women nationally (53% to 43%).  [http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...]

I cannot say I've personally vetted the accuracy of the afore cited sources so others may have different sources and numbers, but they do tell a story of a nation that is increasingly becoming divided. Looking at the stats, I think there is a reasonable question as to whether rural (whatever that means) areas are the ones that are "out of step" or whether urban areas of +1 million are idiosyncratic islands in an unfriendly sea surrounding them. And, was/is this all about Trump or was/is he merely a proxy for venting the frustration and resentment we harbor toward one another?  

Name calling is infantile.  If we cannot find adult ways to listen to, and communicate with, one another, I fear for our future.

ml1 said:

anybody ever listen to conservative talk radio?  Or watch Fox News?  When the hosts talk about liberals, they're glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense of moral and intellectual superiority in how they think and talk about liberals' world view. But I don't know any liberals who voted for Hillary Clinton because they were angry at being portrayed the way they are in conservative media.  

my conclusion is that the real "snowflakes" who need "safe spaces" to soothe their delicate feelings are the conservatives, not the liberals.  We're tougher than to let our feelings get hurt by what Rush or Hannity or Coulter are saying about us.  Perpetual victimhood is a strong characteristic of American conservatives.  

So in a sense, it is on us liberals for not understanding that our mean words about how dumb it would be to vote for Donald Trump backfired on us.  The folks in rural America were offended by that, and to show us, they voted for Trump.

I have to say though that if I was pissed off that a group of people were accusing me of being stupid, I wouldn't try to prove them wrong by shooting myself in the face.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/...

@GL2, celebrating an unsustainable pension system that limits successor generations ability to receive a pension1 is unseemly.  Your taunts are just that taunts (another form of ad hominem attack used by those with no substantive analysis to share).  You appear to be a hypocrite of the worst sort.  Finally, your attempts at virtue signaling are nauseating.2

1- because the state's share of the pension burden for you and yours will be so large that little be left for those working in NJ education today (and in the near future).

2-  Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person's standing within a social group. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

GL2 said:

LOST said:

Boy folks are in a nasty mood.

Oh yeah. But I do enjoy tweaking them. RFA, I also got my MA + 30 on your dime. The reward: A pay increment. So you paid for my grad ed and then gave me a raise. Sweet. "Look for the union label, when you are buying....."

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

As was my first comment on Terp. 

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

Sorry that you're sad. Here's the thing though. If it just stopped at me being lumped in with a bunch of social outcasts deemed dangerous by polite society, you'd be happy as a clam.  I'm basing this on past behavior.  

+10

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

Sorry that you're sad. Here's the thing though. If it just stopped at me being lumped in with a bunch of social outcasts deemed dangerous by polite society, you'd be happy as a clam.  I'm basing this on past behavior.  

RealityForAll said:

2-  Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person's standing within a social group. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What type of signalling is naming oneself "Reality For All"?

Naming myself "Reality For All" for MOL purposes is clearly not a form of virtue signaling (the moniker is merely meant to denote sly humor and POV).  Additionally, I am sure I have NEVER posted anything on MOL in order to enhance my standing with the MOL crowd.

sprout said:

RealityForAll said:

2-  Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person's standing within a social group. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What type of signalling is naming oneself "Reality For All"?

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

Sorry that you're sad. Here's the thing though. If it just stopped at me being lumped in with a bunch of social outcasts deemed dangerous by polite society, you'd be happy as a clam.  I'm basing this on past behavior.  

The thread was doomed from the beginning but I promise that no one considers you remotely dangerous. There are many many people who think just like you. And that's great. 

Most don't think.  And that's not great. 

dave23 said:

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

Sorry that you're sad. Here's the thing though. If it just stopped at me being lumped in with a bunch of social outcasts deemed dangerous by polite society, you'd be happy as a clam.  I'm basing this on past behavior.  

The thread was doomed from the beginning but I promise that no one considers you remotely dangerous. There are many many people who think just like you. And that's great. 

Ah, you consider it "denoting sly humor and POV". That explains a lot. 

Your last sentence is fairly obvious -- I didn't mean to imply that you were specifically 'virtue' signaling on MOL. "RFA" clearly signals that you want to be seen as separate from (and superior in understanding reality as compared to) the MOL crowd... which does not usually enhance one's standing.

RealityForAll said:

Naming myself "Reality For All" for MOL purposes is clearly not a form of virtue signaling (the moniker is merely meant to denote sly humor and POV).  Additionally, I am sure I have NEVER posted anything on MOL in order to enhance my standing with the MOL crowd.

sprout said:

RealityForAll said:

2-  Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person's standing within a social group. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What type of signalling is naming oneself "Reality For All"?

I'm not sure I could imagine a more tedious line of argument.  I think you may have outdone drummerboy here. 

sprout said:

Ah, you consider it "denoting sly humor and POV". That explains a lot. 

Your last sentence is fairly obvious -- I didn't mean to imply that you were specifically 'virtue' signaling on MOL. "RFA" clearly signals that you want to separate from, not enhance your standing within, the MOL crowd.

RealityForAll said:

Naming myself "Reality For All" for MOL purposes is clearly not a form of virtue signaling (the moniker is merely meant to denote sly humor and POV).  Additionally, I am sure I have NEVER posted anything on MOL in order to enhance my standing with the MOL crowd.

sprout said:

RealityForAll said:

2-  Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person's standing within a social group. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What type of signalling is naming oneself "Reality For All"?

Dude... he named himself. Not my fault he picked something that sounds rather presumptuous.

You are entitled to your opinion.  With which, I disagree.

sprout said:

Dude... he named himself. Not my fault he picked something that sounds rather presumptuous.

Would you say that it's...sad?

Seriously though. Most do think. It's just that they don't think like you. If libertarians were a little more flexible I think they'd have plenty to contribute, but then I think back to the drivers license thing at the convention.

Here you (not you you, you libertarians) are, booing Gary Johnson for thinking drivers licenses are a good idea. I see that and think, these guys are crazy, I'm out. ****, true blue hardcore libertarians should be out too - there's no federal drivers license - why would you even ask a candidate for president about it? Which state is clamoring for abolishing drivers licenses? Bah. Insanity.

Anyhow, **** you buddy. I think.

terp said: Most don't think.  And that's not great.