Meme & Quote Thread

[jpx7]

Then we just can't possibly agree on this issue. It happens.

Fair enough.

When the pendulum swings mightily, and the left takes our country back, we will take good care of you, as well. Like my fellow socialist and fellow good-boy The Nazarene says: Blessed are the weak—for though they should rather cower in fear of The Other, cast aspersions on entire peoples and creeds, and generally trade a spirit of open-armed goodness for exclusionary wickedness—they too are our comrades.

[BedellBrave]

[BedellBrave]

[Runnin]

[57Brave]

[sturg33]

I love that 2nd point there... reminds me of when Paul Krugman said we should bomb an American city so that we can rebuild it, and stimulate jobs

[57Brave]

I love that 2nd point there... reminds me of when Paul Krugman said we should bomb an American city so that we can rebuild it, and stimulate jobs

you need a girl friend --

[sturg33]

you need a girl friend --

She's graduating Med school in May... Haven't gotten to see much of her lately...

But yeah your point is still so stupid

[57Brave]

... Haven't gotten to see much of her lately...

ya think

[mqt]

I can get behind most of these, but I am going to have to disagree with the economic activity idea. SNAP benefits are ultimately a government expenditure, which depending on your perspective could be considered a tax drain. I personally don't share that perspective and agree with giving out those benefits, but I'm not going to pretend it's an economically beneficial program, just one that I feel is a societal need.

[Jaw]

I think that's a very misguided position to be arguing from, and I don't really think the suddenness of President Trump's absurd declaration did much to "combat" the "skills" of anyone, except those of our own State Department's ability to combat radicalization and terrorism abroad.

Moreover, the numbers don't back up the concerns that supposedly fueled this EO—especially considering the list of nations was, to put it beneficently, awkwardly selective.

Think of it this way: Americans kill far more fellow Americans with guns than foreign nationals kill Americans with anything. You say restricting access to guns won't help, or won't help enough to justify the restriction of access. I disagree, but statistics are—and I'm being generous here—inconclusive to my proclivities. Well, by the same token, vis-à-vis terrorism, I say that travel restrictions to this country, imposed upon visa-holders or permanent-resident aliens of a certain religion from those seven countries, won't help combat terrorism, or won't help enough to justify that sort of discriminatory activity—and the statistics are much closer to conclusive on this score. You consider restriction-a to be insanity—a total abrogation of those dear rights that make America so grand ... but you consider restriction-b to be laudable, sensible policy. Help me make sense of this cognitive disjunction.

If I can jump in, restriction A directly takes away rights guaranteed to citizens of this country. Restriction B does not directly affect citizens of this country.

[Jaw]

I support SNAP as a necessary program. I also spent many years working in grocery stores. That 3% fraud number is wildly optimistic. I carried out tons of steaks to the trunks of Jaguars, Cadillacs, BMWs, etc. I also saw hundreds of instances where the SNAP beneficiary would swipe their card for the person in front of them, and then receive a portion of that amount in return in cash so they could purchase their alcohol and tobacco. 3% my foot.

[57Brave]

I can get behind most of these, but I am going to have to disagree with the economic activity idea. SNAP benefits are ultimately a government expenditure, which depending on your perspective could be considered a tax drain. I personally don't share that perspective and agree with giving out those benefits, but I'm not going to pretend it's an economically beneficial program, just one that I feel is a societal need.

The point I read was it was a drain on taxpayers - the numbers the writer used say the money gets recirculated at an accelerated rate.
High tide lifts all boats line of thinking

[sturg33]

The point I read was it was a drain on taxpayers - the numbers the writer used say the money gets recirculated at an accelerated rate.
High tide lifts all boats line of thinking

By that logic, should the federal government pay for everything?

[57Brave]

[jpx7]

If I can jump in, restriction A directly takes away rights guaranteed to citizens of this country. Restriction B does not directly affect citizens of this country.

That's fair, if you're coming at this from a guaranteed-rights perspective—though I'd quibble that, while the EO doesn't directly abrogate any rights of citizens, it take away the previously-guaranteed rights of the next best thing (permanent legal residents); and moreover that limiting access (ie closing loopholes) to certain kinds of weapons and/or certain kinds of people is not really "taking away rights guaranteed to citizens of this country", but limiting those rights (for instance: it shouldn't be easier for a released felon to obtain a gun than it is to restore their voting rights).

But thethe was not approaching this from a rights-based direction, but a security-based angle. And my counterargument is that previously-granted rights to permanent legal residents and visa-holders are being entirely abrogated in service of no real gains to security, based on the evidence available; while, in the case of guns example, the previously-granted rights (or, often, loopholes) of some citizens would be limited, but this tradeoff—evidence suggests—might produce real public-safety gains.

[jpx7]

By that logic, should the federal government pay for everything?

For all that's basically necessary to its citizens' subsistence, health, and education, yes.

[Julio3000]

The great Masha Gessen concisely explained thus:

"Lying is the message. It’s not just that both Putin and Trump lie, it is that they lie in the same way and for the same purpose: blatantly, to assert power over truth itself."

[Metaphysicist]

I support SNAP as a necessary program. I also spent many years working in grocery stores. That 3% fraud number is wildly optimistic. I carried out tons of steaks to the trunks of Jaguars, Cadillacs, BMWs, etc. I also saw hundreds of instances where the SNAP beneficiary would swipe their card for the person in front of them, and then receive a portion of that amount in return in cash so they could purchase their alcohol and tobacco. 3% my foot.

Well, 3% is like 1 in 33 people? If you worked in a decently busy grocery store with a decent SNAP-eligible population nearby, you'd probably expect to see almost daily fraudsters even at 3%.

[sturg33]

For all that's basically necessary to its citizens' subsistence, health, and education, yes.

Sure... since apparently it turns into a 73% increase in economic surplus. WHAT A DEAL!