Question for Chap

Callers to action, creators of Superpacs, and championers of causes great and small unite! Air all your political thoughts here. Whitened teeth, dyed hair, and spray-on tans not required but preferred.

Question for Chap

Postby spongebob » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:15 pm

Hey folks, this says it all right here:

Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”


Full article: Right Here

So, Mr. Chapable, are these the dirtbags you were talking about? Seems like they are all wearing an "R". Do you, Mr. Chapabel, support the practice of passing arbitrary laws for the sole sake of giving one party an advantage in elections? This is 100% a Republican practice, Mr. Chapable. So what say you, is this something even your skewed ethics can overlook? Do you condone this kind of practice on the grounds that getting more Republicans into office is better no matter how you do it? Should just go another step and completely cook the elections in every state so that it looks like Republicans get 100% of the vote. You know, like they do it in places like North Korea and Russia.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Keep The Reason » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:21 am

Er... Benghazi!

Uhm... Emails!

Homina hominah hominah... Birth certifica... Wait, no, damn! wrong person... Uh, I mean, Foundation!
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:32 pm

He must be very, very busy. He's gone Defcon 9 here.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby spongebob » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:42 pm

His silence is, weirdly, the most honest thing he has said in a while. He shows up and says a lot of non-constructive, biased, extremist things and, I don't know, expects the atheists and Liberals here to do what? Kiss his feet? You and I could yell and cuss all day about religion and conservatives if I thought it would accomplish anything. Of course I know that much of my tantrum would be from personal frustration and anger and at least 80% of what I said would be bull. But to engage someone with different opinions and experience in a constructive conversation; that's not as easy but it is worth my time. So, if all he's going to do is the former, then he should just spend his time elsewhere.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Chapabel » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:54 am

Sorry for the delay Sponge. I did not know you had posted this and I have been very busy for the last couple of weeks. In response to your question, No, I do not agree in passing laws that prohibit anyone from casting their votes. Neither do I agree with passing laws for the sole purpose of obtaining votes from a certain group. I am not totally familiar with North Carolina's law, but I would agree with Carter Wrenn in that it was probably politically motivated instead of racially motivated. He was correct in that the law would not have even been presented if the majority of early voters had voted Republican.

But don't think this type of political wrangling is limited to Republicans. Democrats pass these "social" laws that give free stuff to people in exchange for their votes. Free cell phones, EBT cards, free health care, etc...Dems want to bring in all these illegal immigrants or grant them citizenship and they vote Democrat. Both parties maneuver for their benefit.

So let me ask you Mr. Sponge, are you in favor of buying votes through the giving away free stuff?
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Chapabel wrote:Sorry for the delay Sponge. I did not know you had posted this and I have been very busy for the last couple of weeks. In response to your question, No, I do not agree in passing laws that prohibit anyone from casting their votes. Neither do I agree with passing laws for the sole purpose of obtaining votes from a certain group. I am not totally familiar with North Carolina's law, but I would agree with Carter Wrenn in that it was probably politically motivated instead of racially motivated. He was correct in that the law would not have even been presented if the majority of early voters had voted Republican.



Typical deflection. Spongebob didn't ask if it was a racist or political thing, he asked if it was a dirtbag thing to do.

And it is regardless if the motivation is political in nature or just racist in nature. I could see an argument that it's purely political in thrust; if blacks overwhelmingly voted for Republicans, I'd imagine Republicans would never implement such laws against them. But the "dirtbag" part comes from the fact that they DO implement these tactics in order to strip American citizens of their right to vote.

That's dirt-baggery. Period. Regardless what side does it. In this case, we ONLY find it in the "R" side.

But you then go ahead and expose the clear differences between our social philosophies-- and the fact that your philosophy is antithetical to you claiming a Christian mantle.

Look how you define Democrat "political wrangling". It's overt and clear:

But don't think this type of political wrangling is limited to Republicans. Democrats pass these "social" laws that give free stuff to people in exchange for their votes. Free cell phones, EBT cards, free health care, etc...Dems want to bring in all these illegal immigrants or grant them citizenship and they vote Democrat. Both parties maneuver for their benefit.

So let me ask you Mr. Sponge, are you in favor of buying votes through the giving away free stuff?


So let's expose the hypocrisy. Here's the Christian, who is extolled to "give to others". It's a direct theme in the NT. "If asked for your shirt, give your coat as well." "If you want to be perfect, take all you have and give it away." "The good Samaritan". Now, before Chap decides to deflect, this isn't even a strict comparison between "giving up everything" versus compassion for the poor.

The Democrats have become progressives in social issues, and that involves extending a helping hand to less fortunates. You take various social programs and the first thing you do is "quote" them as if they aren't really social programs.

This is a lie of course. Because of course they are social programs-- they actually deliver the assistance to less fortunate people. Your inability to recoghThat's where we instantly part ways.

On the one hand, we have Republicans cheating by purposely stripping people of their rights.
On the other hand, we have Democrats allegedly "cheating" by giving people things that help them get better opportunities.

Now, I'm quoting the word "cheating" on the Democrats because I don't believe they are cheating by being proponents of things like welfare, childcare, cell phones, etc. While some percentage of people are going to take advantage of such things, the intention and the actual application of those things are to get on one's own two feet. and while we rarely hear of the success stories, they are true by the millions. We know this is demonstrably true simply by the 76 months of positive job growth. Those millions of people Bush's policies threw into unemployment could still simply be parasites like people like Chapabel try to suggest, but they are not=-- they went back into the job market.

Did they need help to get over the hump? Sure. But chap and his ilk don't see that-- they can only see "takers". And they never seem to realize that their corporations are the biggest takers of all. The corporate welfare we hand out to big business -- and the welfare we give to the churches -- far outshines what we give to the truly needy, but he will never see that, and if he does see it, he will never admit it.

And reminder-- Chap's the Christian. He's the guy who claims to worship this god who tells him to be compassionate, to help others, to go the extra mile or three, to forgive 70 times 7 times, to give up everything. But not only does he NOT do that (and I don't blame people for not giving away everything; technically that's foolish), he defends the people who actively try to strip people of rights.

Republicans used to be the party of the African Americans. They were the party of Lincoln, but the racists couldn't stand that so in the mid 1960s as the civil rights movement heated up, Republicans purposely moved towards flipping Democrats to Republicans. But you already know this -- it's called The Southern Strategy, and it's outright admitted that it was done primarily based on race and a desire for conservative votes.

Dirtbag thing? Or no?

The question stands. You claimed that only Democrats do "dirtbag things" and we're showing you Republican dirtbag things. Can you admit the Republicans are also no strangers to dirtbaggery? Yes. Or. No.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:41 pm

Chapabel wrote:Sorry for the delay Sponge. I did not know you had posted this and I have been very busy for the last couple of weeks.


No apology necessary.

In response to your question, No, I do not agree in passing laws that prohibit anyone from casting their votes. Neither do I agree with passing laws for the sole purpose of obtaining votes from a certain group. I am not totally familiar with North Carolina's law, but I would agree with Carter Wrenn in that it was probably politically motivated instead of racially motivated. He was correct in that the law would not have even been presented if the majority of early voters had voted Republican.


Well, it is certainly pleasant to hear this is your opinion. I completely agree that the motivation is purely political in that the intention is to reduce the number of Democrats who can vote. But this in no way makes these actions less deplorable. This is simply an abuse of power. The party with more power here, Republicans, are passing arbitrary laws that do nothing but inhibit citizens from exercising their right to vote. I would equally condemn this if Democrats were doing it, BTW.

The reason I brought this issue up is because you made some harsh statements regarding Democratic politicians on the other thread. Basically you said they were all dirt bags. What I've shown you here and you appear to agree, is that Republicans can be dirt bags as well, which you have already acknowledged but presumably to a lesser degree than Democrats. But this isn't an isolated legal issue, a number of states have enacted such discriminatory laws, including Tennessee, and the result has been a small but statistically significant drop in voting in those states. Most of these states are traditionally "red" states. So there are a lot of Republicans involved in this at every level of government. This should at least cause you to re-evaluate your impression of Republicans.

But don't think this type of political wrangling is limited to Republicans. Democrats pass these "social" laws that give free stuff to people in exchange for their votes. Free cell phones, EBT cards, free health care, etc...Dems want to bring in all these illegal immigrants or grant them citizenship and they vote Democrat. Both parties maneuver for their benefit.


I'll take these one at a time...

Free cell phones for voting for Obama, or Democrats. This is false. Like all conspiracies it has a tiny connection to reality. There is a federal program that was born during the Reagan administration that provides phones for people who qualify, but it has absolutely nothing to do with voting. Here is a Snopes article that addresses it quite deeply; I suggest you read it if you really want to know the facts and not just regurgitate something you "heard".

Free health care - I'm not entirely sure what you specifically mean by this; there are several options, but you clearly view it negatively and that's unfair, it demonstrates that you don't understand the issue. The ACA is NOT free healthcare; simply put it is an attempt to bring more people (specifically healthy people) into the already existing PRIVATE health insurance system, thereby reducing the overall cost to everyone. This is precisely how health insurance works, people pool their money and call upon the use of insurance when they need medical services. The guts of this program were thought up by Republicans in the 90's but never enacted. However, there are many (myself included) who believe that a federally run health insurance system would be far more efficient. There are many economic and medical studies that support this view. Almost every 1st world nation on earth offers some semblance of this and the citizens there are overwhelmingly satisfied with it. Studies routinely show that countries like Canada, France, England, Germany...etc. provide the same quality of care that we have in the U.S. at a significantly lower cost to everyone. So the support of a government run health insurance system is not what you are suggesting; it's not a "free healthcare for Democrats". It is a better system for everyone. But beyond that, these types of programs would have to be passed into law through the normal legal procedures. Your rhetoric suggests that they are done via dictatorship and that is simply untrue.

Immigrants - this is probably the most egregious fallacy. In fact, the vast majority of immigrants of all sorts come here for better jobs and living conditions. I don't condone undocumented entry into our country, but I'm informed enough to know that it isn't anywhere near the problem that people like Trump say it is. In fact, it is people like Trump who benefit most by their presence. Businesses have been welcoming immigrants since the dawn of our country because they work for less than native born people. To truly address the issue, we must FIRST make it a serious crime to employ someone who is here who doesn't have the permission to work. If they can't work, most of them won't come. This truth is reflected in the fact that when our economy went into recession, South American immigrants self-deported and new one's slowed down tremendously. We are currently at around a 20-year low in undocumented immigration. But even when these people are allowed to work, they generally do jobs that most U.S. citizens don't want anyway. They Pay Taxes and they contribute to the GDP. They don't commit crimes any more often than Americans do. So it seems to me that these immigrants are just being unfairly criticized for doing little more than trying to make life better for themselves. Oh, and the vast majority of them are Christians, BTW. They do tend to vote Democratic, but only because the GOP has been hostile to them over the last few decades. They tend to be very conservative and very religious. By targeting them and denigrating them, the GOP has forced their opposition. If Republicans had the fortitude to craft comprehensive immigration reform, it is entirely feasible that the Hispanic community would be mostly Republican.

Both parties maneuver - I won't argue with that. But there is "maneuvering" and there is doing things that are unconstitutional, unethical and downright un-American. Democrats have jury-rigged voting districts when they had the power and that is wrong and I do not support it. In fact, I don't support any unethical or illegal behavior by any party. Before the civil rights movement, repression of black voters was rampant in Southern states. It was completely racially motivated but also political because racist white voters didn't want any of the reforms that would come with more progressive government. The Democratic Party was controlled by racists during that period and it was a deplorable thing. Both Liberals and the religious agreed then that such tactics were immoral and needed to stop. Now, inexplicably, it is the GOP (which is full of Christians AND racists) that promotes that same kind of discrimination. So if you had any shred of integrity, you would not support politicians who promote this practice.

So let me ask you Mr. Sponge, are you in favor of buying votes through the giving away free stuff?


I've already addressed this question, of course I don't support such a thing. There is no evidence that any such thing has been going on by Democrats. Your assertion of "free stuff" is little more than meaningless rhetoric. If you want to examine particular issues I'm happy to do that, but this statement of yours is completely empty. It's also impossible for me to comprehend how Republicans equate government programs intended to reduce poverty with "giving away free stuff". After all, Christians encourage giving away things to poor people and helping them in all sorts of ways. You even send people to countries all over the world to help poor people there, but then you denigrate programs intended to do the very same thing as "giving away free stuff"! Not all government programs work; some fail badly, but it is this kind of senseless equivocation that makes your argument sound like nothing more than ignorance. Programs that work have the power to dramatically improve the lives of Americans. It is a bold fiction that no government programs work.

BTW, I want to fully disclose that two of my grandparents required government assistance at one point in their lives. If those programs had not been there to help them, I might not be here today and I am a contributing member of society.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Question for Chap

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:56 pm

Chap, you may choose to continue this debate on government assistance programs or not, but I want to be perfectly clear here. I don't care if the government shuts down all assistance programs. That may sound antithetical, but here's the point; I don't know any of the people getting my money so it won't likely affect me directly. I do give money and time to various charities and I do know the people that benefit from that. However, if all government programs were shut down, you would see a dramatic increase in human suffering and much of it would be felt by children. If your conscience can be comfortable with that then I wonder why you call yourself a Christian. And before you suggest that church organizations could replace government programs, I suggest you do some digging to see just how much and how many people are actually served and compare that to the amount that churches currently provide. If churches were doing an adequate job of this 50 years ago, we wouldn't even have welfare programs. They arose out of a need; Progressives didn't just decide they had too much money.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Simplyme » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:05 am

So let me ask you Mr. Sponge, are you in favor of buying votes through the giving away free stuff?


This could easily be applied to "Salvation".

It would seem you god is in favor of buying worship through giving away free stuff(SALVATION).

Though the cost of worshiping him(a monster) is rather to high for me. Not to even mention the cost of not accepting this "free" gift..............
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Question for Chap

Postby spongebob » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:47 pm

Simplyme wrote:
So let me ask you Mr. Sponge, are you in favor of buying votes through the giving away free stuff?


This could easily be applied to "Salvation".

It would seem you god is in favor of buying worship through giving away free stuff(SALVATION).


That's a very good point and one I hadn't foreseen. Great job picking up on that bit of contradiction in ideology.

But to address the political issue more directly, it occurs to me that in the last 30 years or so I've rarely heard a Republican comment on government programs (other than the military) in any sort of rational way. Forget positive; that's out the window. No, I would love to just hear some rational discourse on the subject. Chapabel is not unique; it's an epidemic for conservatives to refer to virtually any government program as wasteful, corrupt, thieving or worse. They are enormously derisive of any environmental protection law, any regulation of the markets or businesses, virtually anything except waging war and spending money on religious monuments. I just can't understand the lack of historical perspective with these people. I'm no great historian myself but I've read enough books to know a few things about what this country was like 100 or more years ago. Businesses once controlled virtually everything. The wealthy essentially owned the country and did pretty much whatever they pleased. Is this really what the average conservative person wants to return to? Why? There's no benefit for someone who makes less than a few million dollars a year.

Before the trust busting days of Teddy Roosevelt, the country was riddled with poverty and desperation. People worked like slaves for pennies while the industrialists lived like kings. And by today's standards, even people like Warren Buffett would be only modestly wealthy in comparison. These people owned hundreds of billions of dollars in modern currency value and payed almost no taxes. They were kings! That is the great promise of the GOP, to return to this. Why on earth would they want to do this?

Now I'm not going to be guilty of what conservatives do and lie and exaggerate facts. Some wealthy barons actually became aware of their ethical problem and spent a great deal of their time and fortune patronizing charitable endeavors. Of course I don't think this exactly excuses them for things like waging war on their own workers, but at least the became a little human before they died. Others did not and did their best to absorb as much wealth as humanly possible, only to die and leave it to their offspring.

But in the decades since, taxes have gone from nothing to extraordinary to essentially moderate, which is where they should have been all along. But conservatives want them to return to nothing if the popularity of Governor Brownback is any indication. I just want to understand what is so wrong with things like public education and public heath care through the pooling of public monies. The goal is to educate everyone and to treat their illness. What is so wrong with that? And why would a religious people, who pay money to their churches for the very same functions, oppose ideas like this?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Chapabel » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:44 am

Sponge, I don’t know what your experience is in dealing with people who receive all the free stuff for voting for Democrats. I have personal experience two to three times weekly with these people. In jail and on the streets. The driving force behind people voting for Democrats is “free” stuff. Your claim otherwise is in error I’m afraid. I talk to these people and they will flat out tell you that they will vote Democrat because of everything they get for free. Your Snopes link actually confirms the fact that under the Obama administration the “Obamaphone” program was established. BTW, they aren’t called “Reagan phones” either.

As far as free health care, I am not referring to Obamacare. There are premiums that must be paid for that. I’m talking about free health care that is provided at local health clinics. Have you ever been to one? Again, I have. I have seen firsthand that it is jam packed with people who do not have health insurance. Well over 50% of those there are able-bodied men and women who could work and pay for Obamacare, but they don’t. Many of those in the clinic are tattooed up, with lots of bling-bling on texting on their phones. If they can afford tats, jewelry and cell phones, they can afford insurance. But they don’t because they can get it for free.

I generally agree with your assessment of the immigration issue. I am not sure about your stats that they are mostly Christian and conservative. However, since these immigrants are illegal, they do not have health insurance and they too are stacked up at the free health clinic. They add that much more burden to our federal debt. I’m not blaming them; I’m blaming the government (Dems specifically) for allowing them to be here illegally. I have worked side by side with an immigrant from South America. He was a great worker and a really good man. He invited me to attend his American citizenship ceremony. I was extremely proud for him. He did it the legal way. I truly feel sorry for all these poor immigrants who have come here illegally and are extorted by the Democratic party. They are nothing more than votes. Proof? When the Dems controlled the White House and both houses of congress, they shoved Obamacare up our butts. However, they did absolutely nothing for immigration reform.

I understand the purpose behind government assistance. If it was operated as it was intended, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. But it isn’t. There are scores of families on the governments teat and they have no intention of getting off. I see it every week. I have stood in the homes of those in the “projects” and I hear with my own two ears that they will not work because they will lose their government assistance if they do. You can sit back in your comfy home and read the stats all day long, but I see it, I hear it and I experience it firsthand. I’m telling you for a fact these people vote Democrat because they know they will get free stuff.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Simplyme » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:56 am

I have personal experience two to three times weekly with these people. In jail and on the streets. The driving force behind people voting for Democrats is “free” stuff.


Wow, personal experience, and with people in jail and on the streets. Shit.....that convinced me. Fucking Freeloading Democrats...to hell with them all.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:



Side note:

I truly feel sorry for all these poor immigrants who have come here illegally and are extorted by the Democratic party. They are nothing more than votes.


Illegals can not vote, so how are they just votes? For fucks sake.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:41 pm

Chapabel wrote:I’m telling you for a fact these people vote Democrat because they know they will get free stuff.


Let's say you're right. What about the millions and millions of us who do NOT vote for democrats for free stuff, but do so because of their better policies and economic plans?

Whatever business you're in maybe you should get out of it. Expand your narrow horizons. Almost everyone I deal with works, contributes and is interested in social justice issues. You sound like you've been made into a heartless fellow because of your interaction with people on government assistance.

You know, just like Jesus would have become that way too, hanging around the poor and the sinners and th... oh wait, no he did hang around them all the time and was compassionate towards them. Silly me.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby Chapabel » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:51 am

Keep The Reason wrote:
Chapabel wrote:I’m telling you for a fact these people vote Democrat because they know they will get free stuff.


Let's say you're right. What about the millions and millions of us who do NOT vote for democrats for free stuff, but do so because of their better policies and economic plans?

Whatever business you're in maybe you should get out of it. Expand your narrow horizons. Almost everyone I deal with works, contributes and is interested in social justice issues. You sound like you've been made into a heartless fellow because of your interaction with people on government assistance.

You know, just like Jesus would have become that way too, hanging around the poor and the sinners and th... oh wait, no he did hang around them all the time and was compassionate towards them. Silly me.

I understand there are millions like you who do not get free stuff and still vote Democrat. I'm praying for y'all too.

I'm not a heartless fellow. I'm a person who sees how the system is being manipulated by countless individuals for their own gain. These people live for free in government housing, they receive EBT cards for free food, they receive free health care. But wait...these folks are also the drug dealers, pimps/prostitutes and gang members. Where they live are areas where shootings and other crimes take place.

I live near a state park. There are signs everywhere prohibiting people from feeding the wildlife. The reason being the animals will become dependant on people for food and will lose their fear of people and pose a threat to us. The government is doing the same thing to people by housing and feeding them. They have become dependant on the government and they have lost respect for themselves and others. Treat people like animals and they eventually act like animals. Look at cities like Detroit, Chicago and Atlanta. Major urban areas run by Democrats. These cities are full of people living on the government's dole. They are also cities which are cesspools of crime. You really want to help underprivileged people? Then educate and train them to be contributing members of society and stop enabling them. Until you liberals do that the problem will continue. But then you lose votes.

I was talking to a friend’s little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were to be the President, what is the first thing you would do?’

She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’ ‘Wow - what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my sidewalks and driveway, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house.’

She thought that over for a few seconds ‘cause she’s only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

And I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party, sweetheart.”
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Question for Chap

Postby spongebob » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:36 am

Chapabel wrote:Sponge, I don’t know what your experience is in dealing with people who receive all the free stuff for voting for Democrats. I have personal experience two to three times weekly with these people. In jail and on the streets. The driving force behind people voting for Democrats is “free” stuff. Your claim otherwise is in error I’m afraid. I talk to these people and they will flat out tell you that they will vote Democrat because of everything they get for free. Your Snopes link actually confirms the fact that under the Obama administration the “Obamaphone” program was established. BTW, they aren’t called “Reagan phones” either.


You must have misread the article. It states clearly that the program was initiated during the Reagan administration, not Obama's. The fact that it has continued until present and changed over time doesn't in any way make it "Obama's" program.

I don't doubt that you have personal experience with people who take advantage of government programs, but the reality of voting is quite different. Poor white people, specifically those in the South, most often vote Republican by a large margin. Black do not, but it isn't because of "free stuff" so much as a Republican party that doesn't show any interest in their issues. I would like to know more about these people who vote for "free stuff". What stuff are they getting specifically? And would that stuff be removed if a Republican were elected president. Remember that in most states now, Republicans run almost everything. Republicans run both houses of the federal government as well. So are you hoping to see all welfare programs abolished?

On a personal note, I will share that I have an uncle who is on disability due to a bad knee. (I know that disability is a hot button issue with a lot of conservatives) He was a truck driver and I'm pretty sure his knee wasn't that much of a problem. He still hunts and rides his motorcycle. He votes Republican despite the fact that most Democratic policies would benefit him.

As far as free health care, I am not referring to Obamacare. There are premiums that must be paid for that. I’m talking about free health care that is provided at local health clinics. Have you ever been to one? Again, I have. I have seen firsthand that it is jam packed with people who do not have health insurance. Well over 50% of those there are able-bodied men and women who could work and pay for Obamacare, but they don’t. Many of those in the clinic are tattooed up, with lots of bling-bling on texting on their phones. If they can afford tats, jewelry and cell phones, they can afford insurance. But they don’t because they can get it for free.


Well, this is a good question to be asking. The ACA was constructed to get all of those people on health insurance and it has had tremendous success nationwide. However, there are pockets, particularly in the South, where states have used every legal means possible to push back against the ACA and that has resulted in some people not getting insurance. I would like to understand why these people aren't on a health insurance plan and going to a private physician instead of a free clinic. The results would likely be much better. My sister is a nurse and works for a hospital, but she works one Saturday a month at free clinic in her town. From what she tells me, most of the people they see are immigrants who cannot sign up with an insurance company through the ACA. And let's keep in mind that all of these people are just that, people. The fact that they have tattoos or wear gaudy jewelry (which is most likely not real) shouldn't distract from the fact that they are human beings and deserve some dignity and respect. People do make bad choices sometimes and they need to take responsibility for those; I'm not denying that. But isn't there room for some compassion as well?

I generally agree with your assessment of the immigration issue. I am not sure about your stats that they are mostly Christian and conservative.


This is easy to find out, and remember that because they are overwhelmingly from South America, most are Catholic. My wife's parents live in a neighborhood that is surrounded by Hispanic immigrants, I suspect most undocumented. I've talked to these people on occasion and they are surprisingly affable. They are mostly families with a strong work ethic and conservative values. I've gotten to know a few who work in my town and most of them work two or three jobs because they are all sending money back home to their families. In every case I've personally seen, they all share most of the same values as you. They certainly aren't atheists, I can assure you of that.

However, since these immigrants are illegal, they do not have health insurance and they too are stacked up at the free health clinic. They add that much more burden to our federal debt. I’m not blaming them; I’m blaming the government (Dems specifically) for allowing them to be here illegally.


Yes, you are right that they can't get health insurance through the ACA so they have to use free clinics and ER's, but how does this add to the federal debt? The only burden they are is to the overall cost of health insurance, and again, the ACA was designed to address that. Immigration reform would also deal with that. The key point is this, are you really interested in deporting something like 12 million people who actually contribute to the economy in a legitimate way just because they don't have their "papers"? Wouldn't it make far more sense to develop a plan to bring them into a legal resident status? Why is that such a bad thing? And this is not a Democrat thing; that's just a cop out. Don't forget that businesses all across the US really want these workers because they fill a need. How is that a Democrat problem? The only reason you see it as a Democrat problem is because Democrats don't talk about mass deportation. But guess what, neither do the vast majority of Republican politicians. Only people like Trump do that and their typical solution is to spend tens of billions of dollars on a giant wall and armies to defend the southern border. So how is that going to help the federal budget? And BTW, it won't likely stop the problem either.

I have worked side by side with an immigrant from South America. He was a great worker and a really good man. He invited me to attend his American citizenship ceremony. I was extremely proud for him. He did it the legal way. I truly feel sorry for all these poor immigrants who have come here illegally and are extorted by the Democratic party.


I just don't understand where you are coming from on this. How are they extorted by Democrats? Can you be very specific about this? When you say things like this it just sounds like a typical form of conservative radio rant. There's no details, just a foregone conclusion that should be obvious to everyone.

They are nothing more than votes. Proof? When the Dems controlled the White House and both houses of congress, they shoved Obamacare up our butts. However, they did absolutely nothing for immigration reform.


First of all, non-citizens cannot vote, so can you please retract that statement? There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting for anyone, let alone Democrats. Please be reasonable about this.

Second, Democrats would love to see immigration reform, but in the 8 years that Obama has been president that has not been possible. As you allude to, the ACA had to be passed through a complicated series of legal maneuvers with no votes from Republicans. Republicans have routinely shut down any and all negotiations regarding immigration. This appears to stem from the distaste Republican voters have with the idea of defining a legal path to citizenship for the immigrants, what you would derogatorily call "amnesty". In fact, there is a long and storied history of the USA allowing mass immigration and granting amnesty to existing undocumented immigrants by both parties; Reagan and Bush 41 included. What baffles me is why there is such outrage over the issue now. The conclusion I have drawn is that this distaste stems more from a desire for cultural and racial purity than anything else. This country has always been an immigrant country and the idea of "legal" immigration is somewhat new in a historical sense. But I acknowledge that those who were born in the USA, especially those who had generational precedent, have generally looked ill upon those newly arrived. So to me this looks like just another iteration of that. Those privileged enough to have a long family history here see it as "their" country when it is an historical fact that we can all trace our lineage back to people who took this country by force. Doesn't that make your argument just a little bit of a farce?

I understand the purpose behind government assistance. If it was operated as it was intended, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. But it isn’t. There are scores of families on the governments teat and they have no intention of getting off. I see it every week. I have stood in the homes of those in the “projects” and I hear with my own two ears that they will not work because they will lose their government assistance if they do. You can sit back in your comfy home and read the stats all day long, but I see it, I hear it and I experience it firsthand. I’m telling you for a fact these people vote Democrat because they know they will get free stuff.


I'm not denying your experience or your points as you are mine. I agree that government assistance programs are rife with abuse and need a serious overhaul. If reform is what you advocate, then I'm right there with you. In fact, some of the programs initiated in the 60's have done just the opposite of what they intended and despite what you may think, Democrats are aware of this. We actually have a brain and use them to study data and learn. But again, with a Republican congress that simply refuses to cooperate on anything, no Democrat can get anything done nowadays. There is simply no willingness to compromise anymore.

What you aren't acknowledging here is that poverty is a human trap that is not easy to escape from. Yes, some people in that trap are bad people and will use whatever advantage they can get just to abuse it. But are they all like that? And don't wealthy people also take advantage of laws and the gullibility of others to their advantage? Your ideology suggests that only the poor can be bad people and that only their actions can cause damage to our country, but that is simply untrue. In fact, the damage one poor person can do to the nation is severely limited. But a person like Bernie Madoff can damage thousands of people, businesses, markets and more and I hear precious little outrage for people like him. Where is the outrage for those irresponsible traders who got us into the last recession? Why are none of them in jail and why do Republicans resist bringing them to justice? Where is the outrage for the automakers who knowingly sell cars with faulty key switches and covered up the defect? I could probably like dozens of powerful and rich people who have done tremendous damage to our nation and people and the outrage I hear about them could scarcely fill a teacup. But then I hear millions of Republicans raging violently about poor people all the time, as if those people were born rich and just decided one day to give away all their money and live off the government dole just to piss off conservatives. So don't sit in your comfy home and deny that life is extremely difficult for millions of Americans.

Look, I don't condone corruption or abuse any more than you do, but I think you need to stop listening to the radical conservatives who concoct one conspiracy after another about the evil Democrats. Democrats are guilty of one thing for sure, and that is the belief that they can make the world better through the use of government power. We aren't always right, but the intention is almost always good. But assassinating the character of the entire political body accomplishes only one thing, and that is making enemies.

You know there was once a huge rift between the two parties that defined them. Democrats once defended slavery and I believe that was evil and selfish. Republicans stood for a change for the better for all people of the country and yet today I hear far more Republicans defend the rights of the states to keep slavery and call what Lincoln did illegal and unconstitutional. But in my mind, Lincoln was in the same place Democrats are now. He wanted to improve the lot of the entire country and he saw the government's power to do that. Of course the result of Lincoln being elected was a disastrous war but it did accomplish the ultimate goal in deciding the issue of slavery. Yet if Democrats then had agreed to compromise, just imagine how different the country might be today. We are in a similar place on several issues today, with Republicans now refusing to compromise and cooperate and this is leading to a very similar scenario. The federal government is nearly at a standstill and the country is sharply divided. I ask you why compromise is such a bad thing? Is war so much better?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest