HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NonMetro » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

NonMetro

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 11, 2015, 07:53 PM
Number of posts: 631

Journal Archives

Question submitted by NonMetro

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

End Social Security & Welfare? Abolish Private Property & Money!

I've had it with this GOP domestic terrorism threatening to end, reduce, cut back, or curtail all the safety net programs that we've built since the 1930's so people wouldn't starve to death or die of exposure in this country. Michigan GOP gangsters, laughingly called our legislators, for instance, ended cash assistance to needy families after 4 years - as if people only lived for 4 years! - and now we literally have beggars standing on street corners around here. And how many Republicans have threatened Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (Bobby Jindle literally gave a death sentence to some poor women in his state by cutting off Medicaid benefits to Planned Parenthood.) and food stamps? Um...all of them!

The trouble with Democrats today is that we aren't radical enough in response to these Republican threats to our continued existence. So, instead of responding to these radical ideas the Republicans have to leave people to starve to death, we accommodate. For instance, welfare so-called "reform": sure, we said, we agree we need to get these deadbeats off welfare and into jobs - as long as you're not too cruel.

Well, if the Republicans want to go back to nature where everyone lives off the land, eating nuts and berries, and hunting for food, survival of the most rugged of rugged individuals, then we need land: abolish private property. Then, abolish money so everyone will have an equal chance to survive.

That's not communism, either. Nope. That just Republican economic philosophy carried out to its inevitable conclusion: every man for himself.

And see? We have the power to destroy the influence of the Koch Brothers, and all the billionaires, forever, if we choose to! And Personally, I'd enjoy seeing David and Charles foraging for nuts and berries! Wouldn't you?

One More Year - YEAR! - Until The Election.

366 days since 2016 is a leap year. They just put up decorations at the malls here for Christmas, and they'll be putting up decorations for Christmas in 2016 before we vote. And this thing has already gone for close to a year at this point.

Any questions on why it costs so much for presidential elections?

Anyone burnt out yet?

Michigan GOPer Lawmakers Sexpelled From Congress To Hook Up Again?

"LAPEER COUNTY (WJRT) - (10/16/15) - A fundraiser this weekend in Lapeer County is raising eyebrows.

It's for expelled state representative Cindy Gamrat.

Sunday's campaign fundraiser at Hideaway Lanes in Almont is nearly 150 miles away from her political turf - and in the district of her extramarital affair partner, Todd Courser."



http://www.abc12.com/news/headlines/Fundraiser-for-expelled-Rep-Cindy-Gamrat-raises-eyebrows-333260131.html?device=tablet&c=y

The two lovebirds, Tea Party family value types, and two of the biggest moral scolds in the capital, were caught By her husband in flagrante delicto in a hotel room back in February. Like good Republicans, they decided to cover up the affair, but apparently couldn't keep the rumor mill quiet. So, earlier this summer, Todd put out a fake e-mail claiming to have been having sex with a gay prostitute in order to, as he phrased it, "inoculate the herd." Well, one thing led to another, and they involved their staffs in their cover up, which ultimately led to charges of misuse of public funds and her expulsion from congress. Knowing what was going to happen, Todd did as all GOPer dudes do in a pinch: resigned a few hours ahead of time leaving her to face the music alone.

Now, they're both running for their old seats again claiming the Republican dominated legislature was up to no good when they expelled her and forced him to resign. Well, on that point, I'm sure we can all sympathize. The Republican Party is a pretty sleazy organization, as I'm sure we all attest to, and I'm sure Cindy and Todd know it better than most!

BTW: both of them are married, in their 40's, with teen and preteen kids. I'm still curious as to how these two church going God-fearing scolds explained all this to their kids.

Hillary Clinton A "Progressive." That's A Good Thing, Right?

I think she is, and I also think she defines the term. Democrats started using this word, "Progressive" with the rise of "New" Democrats in the early 90's, with the rise of the Clinton's, and some began using it to avoid the brow beatings that Liberals were taking from the Republicans. Since that time, the word "Progressive" has become defined by those who align with the concept

But what is a "Progressive"? Do people's agree that a "Progressive" is not the same as a "liberal"? FDR and JFK, for instance, were liberals, and proud of it. Neither one would have ever gone along with the welfare (so-called) "reform" of the 90's, recognizing, as others did at the time, that this was simply another thinly veiled excuse to reduce public assistance to needy people. But "Progressives" supported that. Liberals would not have gone along with NAFTA, either, realizing this was simply a way for corporate America to "hold the line" on wages, and give them more bargaining power to break unions, i.e., "we'll move your job to Mexico where they work for a tenth of what you do." But "Progressives" support this. Progressives also support cameras on every street corner, the right of employers to have cameras hovering over the heads of their employee's, and even the rights of employers, in general, to force drug tests and polygraph tests on their employees. Liberals don't.

So, what other things do "Progressives" support? Should we support "Progressives"?

Baby Boomer's, Busters, X'ers, Next'ers, & Millennials

This is about the media and stereotyping:

First, nobody was ever called a "Baby Boomer" until the mid to late 70's. "Baby Boom" itself started as a joke by some comedian back in the 50's, a play on the word "boom", used to describe a sudden rise economic prosperity, who said everyone knew what the "boys and girls" we're doing after WWII, because of the baby "boom." Everybody laughed, tee-hee! But it wasn't until the 70's, when these so-called "Baby Boomer's" were about 30 years old, when some female TV journalist on a national broadcast, got all excited because she had discovered this new word: "Baby Boomer!" - to describe those born after WWII.

After that, media types played a little game to come up with new names for those born later, hence, "Baby Buster"' "Gen X"er" etc. then sociologists picked up on the game so they could study the "characteristics" of the various generations, and so business people could study their buying habits.

So, this whole thing is a recent development, and the terms are mostly heard in the media. No generation of human beings we're ever named like this before, and this is only happening here, in the USA, although some foreign journalists have picked up on the "fun", too. But in social media, they been mostly used to attack and dis people of the various ones. And this is because they have become stereotypes. So, I've seen thing like, "Oh, I don't care what some dumb Baby Boomer thinks" or "What do Millenials know about anything?" Etc.

There's nothing we can do about this, but people need to be aware of it: not all "Baby Boomer's" are the same, and neither are all "Millenials", and nobody likes to be pigeon-holed like that!

God Told Me To Do It! I Must OBEY!

This whole Kim Davis thing was a tipping point for me.

I don't mind when people express themselves religiously. It's a free country.

But, when people start telling the rest of us that they "Know" what "God" wants, claiming to obeying a "higher authority", that does it. These arrogant people don't "know" what "God" wants. "God" has never talked to any human being on this planet, and "God" never talked to people hundred or thousands of years ago who wrote these "holy" books, either. "God" doesn't give special instructions to priests or ministers, either, and it doesn't matter how many degrees they might have from seminaries, or how many millions or billions of people they represent. They don't "know" anything more about what "God" wants than the guy who picks up the trash around here every week - and he doesn't know anything about it, either!

It's all bull. Kim Davis and her kooky attorney are full of crap! "God" did not tell them they can be exempt from any laws they disagree with, and that they need to obey a "higher authority". They're frauds, all of them. They're hucksters trying to excuse the bigotry, and their anarchy, by claiming to have been inspired by "God"!

It's a fraud! They're stupid, and they're liars! And they invoke "God" because they are trying to establish their authority over the rest of us.

Will Hillary Supporters Please Stand Up? She's Done A Remarkable Job!

Just so everyone knows I'm not trying to pull a sneak attack: I'm for Bernie.

But, I think we should always give credit where credit is due. For instance, in spite of her drop in overall numbers, I think the Clinton campaign has done a remarkable job of keeping her numbers up in the face of the relentless attacks by the GOP the whole while - many unfair attacks, I might add.

And I also think everyone does need to try to understand the different pressures faced by our two leading candidates. Aside from her being a woman running for president, which I think everyone gets, what are these?

So, HRC supporters: Sound off! - and tell us all why we should vote for Hillary? Let's hear it! I might argue with you, and so may others. But isn't that what it's all about?

What Are The Rules About Quoting From Outside Sources?

Is it sufficient to just quote and add the link to your post? I've seen a lot of quotes here that don't have quotation marks, either, but just a link at either the top or bottom. if I should quote the New York Times on something, for instance, would I just quote and put the link above or below the quote?

"IN GOD WE TRUST" Must go!

As I was watching the Pope standing at the podium in congress, my eyes were drawn to these words, emblazoned in granite in bold lettering directly above his head: IN GOD WE TRUST. I realized then exactly how intimidating and coercive these words would be for anyone sitting there who didn't believe in God. It's a violation of our doctrine of separation of church and state, just as putting the words "UNDER GOD" in the pledge is.

Both of these things were done back in the 1950's, during the McCarthy era, and both were passed by congress and signed into law by the president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. They are both unconstitutional because they are both laws passed by congress respecting an establishment of religion. Now, the Supreme Court and every other judge in this country can say they are constitutional all day, every day. But that does not change the truth: they are unconstitutional.

The country is a lot different today than it was 60 years ago. The number of atheists and agnostics, who are completely underrepresented in our congress, is approaching 25% of the population. And there is what? One atheist in congress? I'm suggesting here that a government that favors believers will be primarily comprised of believers, and this has resulted in a substantial part if our population being extremely underrepresented for decades.

The national motto needs to be changed back to e pluribus unum, and the words "under God" must be taken out and the original wording of the pledge restored. It's time!
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »