What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
Drugs supplier is murderous cartels, and again I fail to see how that changes under legalization.
Click to expand...

Really? You fail to see how if marijuana is legalized, legal pot farms would start growing and distributing within the US? Makes perfect sense to me. Then their product would be a lot cheaper than the product that had to be illegally smuggled over a border by the cartels b/c they don't have to price in the risk of getting caught.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
A well reasoned resonse to an argument I didn't make. The point here (why do I have to keep repeating this) is that the elitists who are backing this project (and that includes the mayor and BO) somehow fail to mention that opponants of "Six Flags Over Mecca" have a right to protest. In fact they and a significant number of posters here call people who think this mosque is a bad idea and that its backers are liars by the clock "Islamophobic." Only a psychological condition could account for anyone disagereeing with us on this one. Bunk.
Click to expand...
1.
If you weren't making that argument, then I'm a little confused on the statement that anyone is claiming that one person's first amendment rights would trump another's. Mostly because that's impossible. Anyone actually claiming that (I don't care if it's you, Bloomberg, Dr. Laura, Obama, Tom Cruise or Brett ****ing Favre) needs a serious reminder on what the first amendment actually is.

2.
You might be confusing "elitists backing the project" with "people who are admitting that there really aren't any legal grounds to stop the project". If you don't see a difference between the two, fine. But I see a considerable difference between the two.

3.
Who here is throwing around the "Islamaphobic" tag? I looked back a couple pages and can't find it (unless you're making this up- a possibility, I guess- I'm sure someone did throw it out there, but I'll have to wait until lunchtime before I take enough to actually find it and see the context). And the only really notable times I've seen that term being thrown around in the media (namely: the Time cover and in response to all this Quran burning nonsense in FL), it's mostly been in the context of the amount of protestors who make it very clear that they don't want Muslims in this country PERIOD, in which case the tag is more than appropriate.

4.
Old Pio said:
I wish I'd said that. :)
Click to expand...
I'd like to pretend that you two are joking, but I can't really be too sure.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
1.
If you weren't making that argument, then I'm a little confused on the statement that anyone is claiming that one person's first amendment rights would trump another's. Mostly because that's impossible. Anyone actually claiming that (I don't care if it's you, Bloomberg, Dr. Laura, Obama, Tom Cruise or Brett ****ing Favre) needs a serious reminder on what the first amendment actually is.

2.
You might be confusing "elitists backing the project" with "people who are admitting that there really aren't any legal grounds to stop the project". If you don't see a difference between the two, fine. But I see a considerable difference between the two.

3.
Who here is throwing around the "Islamaphobic" tag? I looked back a couple pages and can't find it (unless you're making this up- a possibility, I guess- I'm sure someone did throw it out there, but I'll have to wait until lunchtime before I take enough to actually find it and see the context). And the only really notable times I've seen that term being thrown around in the media (namely: the Time cover and in response to all this Quran burning nonsense in FL), it's mostly been in the context of the amount of protestors who make it very clear that they don't want Muslims in this country PERIOD, in which case the tag is more than appropriate.

4.

I'd like to pretend that you two are joking, but I can't really be too sure.
Click to expand...

It's an implicit argument. When the rich dwarf has spoken on this issue he has framed it exclusively as an expression of the first amendment rights of the backers of this Islamist county fair. No mention whatsoever of the rights of others to oppose it for whatever reason.

I am not confused nor am I confusing anything or anyone, but thanks for the analysis, I assume it's on the house.

"I looked back a couple of pages," well, let's not work ourselves to the bone with research. This may come as a surprise, but opinions on this issue have been expressed other than here. And the claims of "Islamophobia" on the part of opponants of "Jihad City" have been loudly proclaimed all over the place. Where have you been? So the "fact" that pro mosque posters may or may not have actually used the word "Islamophobia" here is beside the point. That's what they think, and they don't deny it. Anyone who disagrees with them is either Islamophoic or racist or sexist or homophobic or something. We all have first amendment rights, it's just that some of us express fundamentally flawed opinions, despite our right to do so.

Most liberals in the MSM (now there's a redundancy) use terms like "extreme right wing" and "extreme conservatives" without ever considering that symmetry dictates there has to be an "extreme left wing" or "extreme liberals." No sir. Sort of like that punk Daniel Schorr suggesting that Goldwater was going to align himself with Nazis in Germany. Not a smear, mind you, just good MSM reporting.

As to whether or not I'm kidding, you're on your own, bub.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

pardonme said:
Really? You fail to see how if marijuana is legalized, legal pot farms would start growing and distributing within the US? Makes perfect sense to me. Then their product would be a lot cheaper than the product that had to be illegally smuggled over a border by the cartels b/c they don't have to price in the risk of getting caught.
Click to expand...

No, I don't see that happening as most places won't allow large scale pot farms to operate in their municipality. Operating legally = regulation = increased costs. You can't just start a thousand acre pot farm in California. Now before you try the "govt will legalize it for the tax revenue" argument, govt could legalize prostitution and tax it too, and in 49 states they've yet to do so.

Now will some people grow for their own consumption? Sure. I don't see that putting a dent into the reliance on south of the border producers however. Bottom line is its still going to be cheaper to operate illegally (as in without taxes or regulation) than it is to operate legally.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
I find the whole class warfare argument that the right pulls out quite hilarious since the middle class is the one taking it in the behind no matter who the President.

Poor - increasing
Wealthy - increasing
Middle Class - dropping like a stone
Click to expand...

Actually, until two years ago it went like this:

Poor - same
Wealthy - increasing
Middle Class - decreasing

The middle class has been shrinking, but its been because many of them went into the upper-class.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

MinnFan said:
Actually, until two years ago it went like this:

Poor - same
Wealthy - increasing
Middle Class - decreasing

The middle class has been shrinking, but its been because many of them went into the upper-class.
Click to expand...

Middle Class wages have been stagnant for 10+ years. Poor side is increasing due to the lower middle class folks continually falling into that category.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
Middle Class wages have been stagnant for 10+ years. Poor side is increasing due to the lower middle class folks continually falling into that category.
Click to expand...

Scoob - I think it should be noted that most of the information used to convey the middle class is measured by household income. There are a variety of reasons why that creates difficulty in measuring the progress, or lack thereof, in class income.

For example, the number of single parent households and the number of retirees living well into their twilight are significant changes from as recent as 20 years ago. Where it gets tricky is that we also see a lot of dual income households...where if two higher income people co-habitate then the gap between they and a single parent household is magnified.

A person with a pre-disposed notion towards class inequality could easily take household data over the last 50 years and say the middle class is stagnant. They aren't completely wrong any more than they are completely right...it is far more complicated than they portray.

Wages for most jobs have increased over time, which is not the same as household income.


edit: most of the analysis also doesn't include the benefit of company subsidized benefits (something else that hasn't been constant over time)...which isn't income but is an economic benefit for the working class. Yes those subsidies have been reduced as a percentage over the last several years but for anyone that has tried to buy their own, it is clear there is a benefit to the employee.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
It's an implicit argument. When the rich dwarf has spoken on this issue he has framed it exclusively as an expression of the first amendment rights of the backers of this Islamist county fair. No mention whatsoever of the rights of others to oppose it for whatever reason.

...

Most liberals in the MSM (now there's a redundancy) use terms like "extreme right wing" and "extreme conservatives" without ever considering that symmetry dictates there has to be an "extreme left wing" or "extreme liberals." No sir. Sort of like that punk Daniel Schorr suggesting that Goldwater was going to align himself with Nazis in Germany. Not a smear, mind you, just good MSM reporting.
Click to expand...
So basically, every critique of the far right must be accompanied by another on of the extreme left? Everytime someone mentions one group's first amendment rights, they have to also mention the first amendments rights of their opposition?

You aren't actually getting your knickers in a twist over this, are you? This is starting to sound like affirmative action for political threads.

As an aside: The fact that it would be un-Constitutional for the government to step in and deny "Jihad City"* really can't be stated enough. Especially since keeping the government out of where it doesn't belong is supposedly one of the hallmarks of modern conservatism. Or are there exceptions to be made in cases where the Constitution is crystal clear about the government not getting involved? As a <strike>moderate liberal</strike> filthy, rotten communist who hates America, I don't get those memos, you know.

In either case, the logic doesn't exactly follow if we say that any time a politician acknowleges that it would be un-Constitutional for them to step in and block the project, that it is tantamount to supporting it. They are in no way the same thing.

* How do I know I'm crazy? I'm trying to argue with a guy who uses terms like this...

Old Pio said:
I am not confused nor am I confusing anything or anyone, but thanks for the analysis, I assume it's on the house.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah... You have a huge ego. That's nice.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

walrus said:
I just saw the NYC mosque guy say not building the Mosque at ground zero will make the fundamentalists angry. Is their anything that doesn't make them angry?
Click to expand...

This thread.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Just curious, but does someone have the official income ranges that define a household as being wealthy, middle class, or poor?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
Just curious, but does someone have the official income ranges that define a household as being wealthy, middle class, or poor?
Click to expand...

It's from Wikipedia, but...

500px-Class_US.svg.png

Class in the U.S., featuring occupational descriptions by Thompson & Hickey as well as U.S. Census Bureau data pertaining to personal income and educational attainment for those age 25 or older.
Click to expand...
In 2009, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,161; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,756.[7]
Click to expand...

A rough guess would be that five figure salary is "middle class." There are breakdowns throughout the middle class though, because obviously someone earning $18k isn't in the same class as someone banking $80k. Both, probably, are eating ramen noodles at least a few times a month when the bills are due. :D
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Here is one of the standards used:

Well, at least there's an official poverty line. In 2007, it was an annual income under $20,650 for a family of four.

As for middle class, well, the Congressional Research Service issued a report last year pegging middle class income as between $19,000 a year and $91,000 a year.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rich, middle class, and poor have no meaning unless they are compared against something. Income is an insufficient measure, since a retiree living off savings in a paid-off house is certainly "richer" than a single mother with two jobs renting an apartment. A good measure of being "rich" should include a lot of additional factors: current income, value of property and possessions (indicator of past income), education (indicator of future income), etc.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Kepler said:
Rich, middle class, and poor have no meaning unless they are compared against something. Income is an insufficient measure, since a retiree living off savings in a paid-off house is certainly "richer" than a single mother with two jobs renting an apartment. A good measure of being "rich" should include a lot of additional factors: current income, value of property and possessions (indicator of past income), education (indicator of future income), etc.
Click to expand...

Cost of living where they are is another one.

$50,000 goes A LOT further in some places then it does in others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top