The Democraps are Class Warfare Socialists

OK RS, I'll make the argument but I don't like where this is going because you are going to use this an a forum to attack me again but I'll do it anyway. I was avoiding the Jewish issue this reason but fine, I'll explain further. But before I do, all you do is come on here and tell me my arguments are flawed. You never back it up with anything. I gave you a very rational explanation that 80% of the people on this board would agree with and you completely dismiss it as being false for no reason. Can't you at least make an attempt to say why it's false. But fine, here we go.

As to the Jewish issue. Look, you know as well as I do that a lot of Jewish people fall into the doctor and lawyer category, please don't deny this. I have a lot of friends that are Jewish, a lot, and all of them are doctors and lawyers. Now I am not implying that every single Jewish person is a doctor or lawyer, but they have a much larger percentage then other groups, this I do know. And remember I stated that doctors and lawyers were exempt from my rich rule because they are not capitalists, but rather they are seen as doing good for society and actually fulfilling a purpose.

Now there are many Jewish people in the banking industry as well but this I will tell you, they tend to stick together. Most young Jewish men look for firms that have high numbers of Jewish people working there and apply for those jobs. So in general, they might work in the banking industry, but they do not like capitalism as it pertains to anything outside their group.

Now let me ask you something RS. How many Jewish people do you know work in unions? How many? OK, how about this, how many Jewish school teachers do you know? OK, how many work low skilled jobs, like in the kitchen or bussing tables? How many lay track for the railroads, build cars, build planes? Please give an answer to this before you shout back at me that I'm crazy, you know I am right about this.

Now as far as the red and blue states. Look, this is easy. Everybody on this board knows that NY, LA, Chicago and Boston is where the big money is, not Montana or South Dakota. OK? So the people who work in these areas make the most amount of money agreed? The cost of living is also high in these areas agreed? OK. These areas do have a lot of jobs though. Because of the wealth there, that wealth trickles down, uh oh, I used that word from the Reagan era, to the less fortunate.

How so? Well, the rich go to eat a lot, they go to the bars a lot, the consume lots of products, go to the theatre, so and so on. Well these activities provide income and opportunity for the low income crowd. Now, you know as well as I do, that these 4 large cities due to their size and ethnic diversity, have an enormous amount of social problems that come with the territory. Such as poverty, crime, high cost of living, so on and so on. Because of that, these large cities vote democrat. And they tend to have a large amount of democrats living there. Make sense?

So it's not that they these states are rich and they are democrats, they are democrat because of the population they hold and the problems that highly populated areas tend to have. Why do you think the city of Chicago is left leaning but downstate Illinois is very conservative. Why do you think manhattan is very liberal, yet upstate NY is very conservative. Follow here?

And btw, those poor states you mentioned, are not that poor. Their cost of living is a fraction of what NY's is and their taxes are also a fraction of what NY's is. A married couple living in Columbus, Ohio for example making 70k a year together, are probably better off financially then a couple in manhattan making 200k a year. So this idea that the conservative states are poor is a joke.

Also, look at the poverty rates in LA, NY, San Fran, Chi, Boston, take a look at the numbers. It's 5 to 10 times higher then it is in the heartland. These so-called rich areas in the blue states are not really all that rich, the wealth is highly concentrated in small pockets. The mass majority of people that live in NY, Boston, Chicago and LA have a very high cost of living, pay a lot in taxes and don't make that much money, hence the shape of capitalism whereby a small group of people earn a lot of money at the expense of the majority. Ahhh, it's all starting to make sense now isn't it?

I hope I made myself clear now. And again dude, if your going to attack me, please attack me with facts not rhetoric. Attack me with ideas and not name calling. Attack me with a strong fundamental argument, instead of this, I can't belive you said that or I can't belive you think that or I don't know where you are getting that from. Stop, collect your thoughts, put them together, make them cohesive, and string them together to form an argument. Fair enough? Good.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

collect your thoughts, put them together, make them cohesive, and string them together to form an argument. Fair enough? Good.
More...


Look, I apologized for calling you an "idiot" ..did I not? I have not seen any apologies for being called far worse when I was critical of the extreme right. But I don't care, so again, I am sorry, and let's put it behind us. OK?

Now, let's talk about FACTS. I was not the one that came here and wrote "THIS IS TOO EASY" and claimed "victory" based on nothing but opinion.

I did NOT make any gross generalizations such as "Democrats and liberals REALLY REALLY HATE rich people".

So who is making claims without facts? Who is making generalizations? Who is insisting on being "right" based on beliefs, and not facts?

You throw around numbers very quickly and very loosely. And then you want ME to back up what I say with facts.

”I gave you a very rational explanation that 80% of the people on this board would agree with and you completely dismiss it as being false for no reason”

This is a great example of what you have done. 80%? Based on what? Your opinion. Nothing more or less.

”Now I am not implying that every single Jewish person is a doctor or lawyer, but they have a much larger percentage then other groups, this I do know”

OK, I agree with you. A higher percentage of Jews probably are doctors and lawyers than that of non-Jews. Are there some groups that have exceptionally lower percentages? Higher percentages? Yeah, there are, so let’s just leave it at “non-Jews”. Fair enough?

Now I don’t know what the percentage is. But for argument’s sake, let’s say that Jews have TWICE AS MANY doctors and lawyers as non Jews on a percentage basis. Now let’s make some realistic guesses. You said that NOT ALL JEWS are doctors and lawyers. I agree. But what is a reasonable guess? Let’s say (just for example) that 5% of Jews are doctors and lawyers, as opposed to 2 and a half percent of non Jews. So here we have double the amount of doctors and lawyers percentage wise. Still, this leaves 95% of the remaining Jews NOT being doctors and lawyers. So I am lost. Where does this percentage of Jews who are doctors and lawyers serve to help your argument that “Democrats and liberals REALLY REALLY hate rich people” (except Jews)? And furthermore, how does this make Jews an exception to your contention of Democrats and liberals “really really hating rich people”???????? If your reasoning were valid (which I dispute), what about the other 95%?

Now having said this, let me assure you that NONE of the very wealthy people I was referring to in Palm Beach are doctors. And while a small handful of them are indeed lawyers, they are certainly less than 1 or 2 percent tops. The very wealthy, as you yourself pointed out, are “capitalists”…they have made huge amounts of money in BUSINESS…real estate, manufacturing, etc…NOT as doctors and lawyers. Doctors and lawyers, while generally wealthier than average are also not among the very wealthy (with some very rare exceptions...statistically insignificant)..

”And remember I stated that doctors and lawyers were exempt from my rich rule because they are not capitalists, but rather they are seen as doing good for society and actually fulfilling a purpose.”

So your point here is what? That rich people who are “seen as doing good for society and actually fulfilling a purpose” are admired by Democrats and liberals? OK, I'll agree. But even though you yourself see these attributes as a positive thing, this helps your argument how?????? Are you making this statement to demonstrate perhaps that a Neil Bush who plundered a Savings and Loan would be more admired by Republicans and conservatives than by Democrats and liberals? I guess you are probably right. LOL!!!


Even if the Jewish doctors and lawyers were ALL billionaires, what does this have to do with why they vote as Democrats. Or as Republicans? You seemed to imply that it was BECAUSE they are Jews that they vote one way as opposed to the other. You STILL have not said why? And what about the other (estimated) 95%?

You made an outrageous statement, I asked you to explain, and you have not in any way at all. You don't see this??

”Now there are many Jewish people in the banking industry as well but this I will tell you, they tend to stick together. Most young Jewish men look for firms that have high numbers of Jewish people working there and apply for those jobs. So in general, they might work in the banking industry, but they do not like capitalism as it pertains to anything outside their group”

This is complete and utter stereotyping based on YOUR perception. This is HOW YOU MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS. I challenge you to give ANY basis of the above statement other than this is WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Another generalization based on prejudice.

”I have a lot of friends that are Jewish, a lot, and all of them are doctors and lawyers.”

"ALL OF THEM"?????? Amazing….really this defies all statistical probability, but so does winning the lottery, so if you say this is so, then I have to take your word for it. But that does not make it any less amazing.

”OK, how about this, how many Jewish school teachers do you know? “

Actually quite a few. Including my late wife. And many of her friends and co-workers. And my brother in law who is a professor at Michigan State. I would say that a far greater percentage of Jews are involved in academics than are doctors. And probably the same is true regarding lawyers, but that would be a guess. So here again, we are subject to YOUR perceptions as off base as they are. Not facts.


Now where we DO agree is that there are probably very few (on a comparative percentage basis) blue color and farming jobs held by Jews. But again, how does this support your argument?

While union workers at one time were more likely guided to vote Democrat than Republican, this is hardly the case any more. And hasn't been for decades. You are in Chicago…go over to any construction site and ask the guys wearing hard hats if they are Democrats or Republicans. THIS demographic is the true core of the Republican constituency. Or do you think a hundred million rich people voted for GWB?? And the blue collar workers all voted for Gore? Anyway, from what you said, I guess you agree with this, since you already explained that Jews vote Democrat, and Jews are not in union jobs. I couldn't' t be more confused by your logic. And I have a feeling, neither could you.

This really, to me, is the whole irony of the “staunch Republican” mentality. The most inflexible, most hardcore Reagan and Bush lovers are the very group that Reagan and Bush could not have cared about less. The guy that is on a time clock and wears a hard hat. The firemen and the policemen. The transit workers and the laborers. Do I admire the firemen and the police? Yes, very much. (I have to...my other in -laws are a family of cops and firemen....all Irish Catholic....and all Republicans). But do I think that the right wing conservatives have their interests at heart? No. And I am sure you don’t think so either. But for whatever reason, these people adore the right wing of the Republican party.

Maybe because they like having guns and the death penalty? . What else is there as a commonality between a union fireman, a policeman, a construction worker and Dubya?

Or maybe it’s a matter of the general level of education. You tell me.

RS.
 
RS,

I hate to break into this but I wish you'd explain something to me. I'm referring back to that kid's essay, which more or less confirmed my worse fears about the state of the educational system. Why is it when Republicans, more particularly conservatives, refuse to surrender their principles immediately that they are being "divisive"? Was Clinton ever divisive? I seem to recall the media calling anyone who disagreed with him a "Clinton-hater" or something similar. But now it's Bush's fault, he is divisive. Can a liberal be divisive, ever?

I'm not overly impressed by President Bush, but to call him divisive is silly. He went out of his way to adopt the so-called "New Tone", much to the consternation of conservatives. This "New Tone" seemed to be a code word for preemptive surrender on major issues and culminated in the disastrous education bill that he joined Kennedy on. Of course, right after that the Dem's started filibustering his judicial picks and lying about the reasons for their opposition, and he seemed to dimly appreciate that they had no interest in harmony.

And do you honestly think class warfare is appropriate? How does it differ from demagoguery? Isn't it just an appeal to prejudice?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

RS,

Can a liberal be divisive, ever?

I'm not overly impressed by President Bush, but to call him divisive is silly. He went out of his way to adopt the so-called "New Tone", much to the consternation of conservatives.

And do you honestly think class warfare is appropriate? How does it differ from demagoguery? Isn't it just an appeal to prejudice?
More...

AAA, I am not sure what you are looking for here.

Of course "liberals" can be divisive.

I will give you my take on the issue. I am not sure if this is what you meant, but it I will give this my best shot.

I know that Maverick believes I am a "liberal" and a Democrat. And the fact of the matter is that I would not label myself as such.

I will say I am NOT a Republican. And I am NOT a conservative. Can you accept the distinction? I hope you can.

Now, as I have said before, it is just more fun (and easier) to debate many of the favorite issues of the true right wingers. But to me, the right wing is NOT really what I myself think of when I hear the word "Republican". To me, Republicans and Democrats are first Americans, and then, really not all that different.

Then we have to make a further distinction. There are Rep, and Dem politicians, and then there are the VOTERS that vote for them.

Well, to me, the politicians themselves need to decide somewhere along the line which party to align themselves with. Then they are stuck (generally) with a label. It is how the system works.

As voters, we have the luxury to pick and choose. Which is what I think we should do. The flaw in the system is that if I am a registered Republican, I can only vote in the Republican primaries. Or if I am a Dem, the reverse is true. So let's say I am registered as a Republican right now, but I don't want to see Bush re-elected (this is all hypothetical, ok?). So now the Democratic primaries are of interest to me. But I am shut out. Bad system. But I don't know what the solution is. Or maybe I do not understand exactly how it works, and have the wrong idea about it all.

Anyway that is my gripe about being FORCED to allow ourselves to be labelled. The good news is that as voters, we aren't forced. It's only the politicians that are.

Now, with my apology for going off topic, let me go back to the "divisiveness" issue.

Politicians MUST be divisive. If they cannot bring up what makes them different from one another, then they are not politicians.

Now GWB is un-opposed, so he has no issues now with other Rep candidates. But the Dems are slugging it out. So they NEED to be divisive among themselves. Correct? Maybe you don't agree, but anyway that is how I see it. And when the primaries are over, then the Dems will unite, and forget their differences, and go on to attempt to drive a wedge between themselves and the Bush administration. And the Bush administration will do the same thing.

But the voters? The voters don't have ANY REASON at all to intentionally be "divisive". They should be "decisive". Period.

So really, your question seems to me that it SHOULD be about the politicians, not the voters.

For some reason though, it SEEMS to me, right or wrong, that the conservative VOTERS seem to be more willing to attempt to demonstrate their beliefs in a "divisive" light. Why, I don't know. And maybe I am wrong. Maybe it's just perception. Just like Maverick is convinced that Democrats and "liberals" really really HATE rich people. You know and I know this isn't true. But for Maverick, it is. So how can anyone really expect to argue or debate a deep rooted belief? Well I fell into the trap, because I thought is was an interesting and outrageous contention. But clearly, no matter what I say, Mav is going to feel the way he does.

How many religious debates have we seen on ET? Countless. How many people had their minds changed by what was said by people with opposing views? Zero? Less than zero?

Anyway, I guess I just cannot answer your inquiry. Because it's just a matter of perception. My perception is that conservatives seem to WANT to stir up divisive emotions. (I am talking about the voters...the politicians are of course the same no matter what their politics or party).

I do not understand why this is so. I am not even sure I am right in my perception. It just SEEMS like this to me. So it is real to me. Just like it is real to Mav that Dems really really hate the rich.

When Pabst (who I like) called me a "prick" when he disagreed with something I said, it did not surprise me. Another time, he responded to a post I made with a simple "fuck you!". Again, I did not understand why he said this, but it did not surprise me.

I mentioned just in this thread that I have heard the words "liberal" and "asshole" linked literally thousands of times.

I said that I felt that the conservative mindset seemed angrier to me than the moderate or liberal mindset. And again, this is strictly MY PERCEPTION. So for this reason, I find it easier and more fun (like I said) to argue the "liberal" side of issues. But, if you have been paying attention, I have also said that I often will argue a position that I don't necessarily agree with. I just find it more fun to take a side against the conservatives because they are (generally) more rigid and inflexible. And so it becomes fun to watch them lose composure. If the subject matter was really important to me, I would say so. But you have read my posts. Most of what I have said here I have said in a rather lighthearted way. (certainly with many exceptions..).

But you also MUST have noticed that I have been severely critical of Democrats as well as Republicans. It's just entertainment.

I just find it amusing that those who argue the conservative side of issues seem to take it all so much more seriously.

I don't understand why, but I admit to cashing in on the opportunities to stir up controversy. Or, it can be said that I am being divisive. So if you believe I am a "liberal" then this should answer your question. Yes, "liberals" can be divisive.

The only problem with this is that I myself do not really consider myself to be A LIBERAL (which is different than being liberal, which I admit to on many issues).

As to your asking how I felt about "class warfare"...I find it disgusting.

Of course I also find it offensive that this thread is titled with the word "Democraps"....not that I take it personally....it again is a matter of how conservatives SEEM to need to use derogatory terms just to get things started.

As for Bush....no, I don't think he is any more or less divisive than any other guy in his position. Especially under the circumstances. As a matter of fact, I have gained respect for him in a lot of ways since he took office. But I have lost respect for him in other ways. But he has certainly surprised me. And I happen to like him in a lot of ways you would not expect.

But still, I do not think he is qualified to be President. Which hasn't change since before he was elected.

And here (again just opinion), I really have the impression the HE HIMSELF does not feel that he is qualified. He seems insecure in the position. Clinton, for example, seemed the other way to me. He (IMO) seemed so arrogant that it appeared that he seemed to think he was born to be in the Whitehouse. And of course, he was not worthy of the position, and brought shame to the office.

Does this make sense?

Peace,
:)RS
 
Mav, well said, my man, well said.

I was eager to add my own .02 after reading some of the rather bizarre (and evasive) comments RS keeps making (true to style). But after reading all your replies I think you've outlined everything that needs outlining. Anyone that can't understand it from there probably won't ever understand it. Notice how RS doesn't actually rebut any of the points you make on the political differences but instead seizes on some minor exaggeration in order score his points (like "really, really hate the rich" or the perhaps poorly phrased "Jew capital" comments).

RS, since your wife (as you keep telling us), is some big shot in the Jewish community in Florida, why don't you tell us why the vast majority of Jews vote Democrat? Instead of just repeating your non-directed questions? Admittedly, they do add to the 'neutral observer' act you love putting on. Who you think you're fooling is another matter. On that note, I'm curious, when was the last time you voted on the the 'dark side' of that "split ticket" you claim to vote? Honestly.


EDIT.

RS, how you, living in Boca or Palm Beach or whatever, can claim to "know" the average Democrat voter based on the Democrats you know is ___________ amazing. Take a trip up to Cleveland, or Pittsburgh or Allentown sometime. Visit a factory floor during lunch hour. Go for a beer and get to know the All American, lunch pail carrying, blue collar Joe. Then come and tell us a bit about the average Democrat voting mindset.

 
RS,

I guess my point would be that you never hear conservatives accusing someone of being "divisive." That seems to be a label that is tossed around by liberals only, and they use it to try and intimidate their opposition. Often it works, as there is no more craven backstabbing opportunist than the typical Republican career politician. They want only to be left alone, so they can do the log rolling their corporate lobbyists pay them for.
 
Quote from spect8or:

Notice how RS doesn't actually rebut any of the points you make on the political differences but instead seizes on some minor exaggeration in order score his points (like "really, really hate the rich" or the perhaps poorly phrased "Jew capital" comments).

, why don't you tell us why the vast majority of Jews vote Democrat?

On that note, I'm curious, when was the last time you voted on the the 'dark side' of that "split ticket" you claim to vote? Honestly.


Take a trip up to Cleveland, or Pittsburgh or Allentown sometime. Visit a factory floor during lunch hour. Go for a beer and get to know the All American, lunch pail carrying, blue collar Joe. Then come and tell us a bit about the average Democrat voting mindset.
More...

OK, Dan, tell me what political points Mav made that you would like me to rebut. I don't think he MADE any points. What he did do was make sweeping generalizations that I found astonishingly inaccurate. So I called him on the most glaring. Which was the "really really hate" comment. And STILL he has not addressed my challenge to the veracity of that comment. He just DECLARED himself right; it was all explained away by Palm Beach and Broward Counties being the "jew capitals of the country". Then I asked him how THAT was relevant, and still, no response. Unless you can understand his "logic" with all Jews being doctors and lawyers and whatever he was talking about (totally confusing to me).

Next: Where did I say the "vast majority of Jews vote Democrat"? I NEVER said that. Maverick was the one that said that. So again, you really should READ what it is you are disputing. I am surprised that you blew this one so badly. Out of character for you.

Next: I don't know what you mean by the "dark side". Care to elaborate? But the answer to when I last voted a split ticket was this past November.

Next: Apparently you have decided to blindly align yourself with Maverick in this thread no matter what, so it really doesn't' seem to matter what was said, and by whom. But really, you should read my posts if you are going to question or criticize what I say in them. Since you obviously haven't read what I already said on the subject, I will repeat. (I know it isn't a matter of you not being smart enough to understand....I know you are smarter than I am...so clearly you just weren't paying attention). But the "average Democrat voting mindset" you refer to? Well if you think I would find out by speaking with "the All American, lunch pail carrying, blue collar Joe" in Cleveland or Pittsburgh or Allentown, or wherever in the rust belt, then I wouldn't get the slimmest clue as to the aforementioned mindset. Since those guys are overwhelmingly voting Republican. Ask them yourself if you get the chance, since I am sure you will not take my word for it.

Next: You say "RS, since your wife (as you keep telling us), is some big shot in the Jewish community in Florida"....Yet I had not said anything of the kind. My words were "due to my wife's work" or something to that effect. You are beginning to sound a lot like someone else lately. You had your own shtick. Why plagiarize? Your own routine was fine.

Peace,
:)RS
 
Hahaha! :D

Okay, RS, or is that Ma-... nah, I won't use your real name... I admit I wrote that one just to argue for the sake of it. Maybe you were right about me! Damn, nasty, nasty habit. Might check out for a while.

And hey, mr. you-know-who had half a point. If there's anyone's life story (and more) you can piece together from their posts it's...
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

RS,

I guess my point would be that you never hear conservatives accusing someone of being "divisive." That seems to be a label that is tossed around by liberals only, and they use it to try and intimidate their opposition. Often it works, as there is no more craven backstabbing opportunist than the typical Republican career politician. They want only to be left alone, so they can do the log rolling their corporate lobbyists pay them for.
More...

Great post AAA. As always!

I said just a few days ago that YOU should be running for office. I would vote for you.

Politics really are secondary. Leadership is primary.

Maverick...DanM... a lot of guys here, perhaps yourself included really believe I am a liberal (as in being labelled) even though I have said numerous times that I AM liberal, but not A "Liberal."

Which is to say there are many issues on which I side with the conservatives. And as I have also said, I often vote for Republicans. (No, not Bush...I truly think he is as great a disgrace to the Republicans as Clinton was to the Democrats. Maybe worse). But I could vote for you AAA. Because I think you are sincere in your beliefs. And since it is impossible (at least it SEEMS impossible to me) that anyone can agree with anyone else 100% on all issues, sincerity goes an awful long way.

A good leader is about sincerity, integrity, focus, hard work and real ethical values. And of course leadership. Which is achieved by those who can inspire others, and who get respect from others.

The issues seem to work themselves out.

And of course GREAT leaders are the people that have what it takes to be GOOD leaders and find themselves in extraordinary circumstances. So in that sense, we never know who will be great until they rise to the occasion. And of course, the big occasions are always unforeseen.

Peace,
:)RS
 
Quote from Error 404:

And STILL he has not addressed my challenge to the veracity of that comment.
More...
Now that's amusing, RS7 puffed over a poster's veracity. LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top