Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 97

Thread: America divided

  1. #46
    Member Save Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,407
    Quote Originally Posted by HipKat View Post
    ....but The Tea Party candidates that got elected shut him down on everything. I suggest you watch the Vice interview with Obama, Cantor and Boehner that's on HBO this month.
    will do

  2. #47
    Member Save Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,407
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Valid point Save us.

    When people are worried about property taxes, the cost of utilities, living expenses and items like the cost of health insurance they don't care about what bathroom someone uses.

    They also don't need the burden of support programs for 10,000's of refugees imported into the USA while they are struggling to live their own lives. Hillary wanted to increase the importation levels of refugees by a factor of 550%. That right there was a deal breaker for many people. Worry and take care of your own before adding more people into the mix.
    Exactly, what say did the German people have in admitting all these refugees? What say do these various municipalities have when these people are foisted upon their communities. Nice piece in the Buffalo News a few Sunday's ago illustrating gang membership, dropping out of school, and teenage parenthood with the Burmese. How many citizens in those communities are happy with that?

    It's all Kumbayah with these liberals until they are affected., People in blue states like the North East have no idea what it is like to have coyotes, drugs, deaths, and damage on your property for those that live in southern border towns. If it were the case here, New York and Buffalo would be too naive to deal with it.

    How is it that the happiest countries on earth are the least diversified? You know Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc etc. I don't understand. Maybe a lefty can explain that to me.

    Go to any college campus and see how inclusive and open minded the liberal faculty and student body are. They are absolutely not and yet they are still miserable. This self loathing and projecting at it's finest. Higher education...Ha!

  3. #48
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Exactly, what say did the German people have in admitting all these refugees? What say do these various municipalities have when these people are foisted upon their communities. Nice piece in the Buffalo News a few Sunday's ago illustrating gang membership, dropping out of school, and teenage parenthood with the Burmese. How many citizens in those communities are happy with that?
    I guess these issues creates jobs for the social service industry and the net tax payer covers the cost.



    How is it that the happiest countries on earth are the least diversified? You know Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc etc. I don't understand. Maybe a lefty can explain that to me.

    You know who would be good to explain this? Hey BuffaloPundit your up....

  4. #49
    Member buffalopundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    How is it that the happiest countries on earth are the least diversified? You know Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc etc. I don't understand. Maybe a lefty can explain that to me.
    Great question.

    10. Sweden
    9. Australia
    8. New Zealand
    7. the Netherlands
    6. Canada
    5. Finland
    4. Norway
    3. Iceland
    2. Switzerland
    1. Denmark

    Firstly, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are as multicultural as the US, if not more so. Switzerland has four official languages, and as a confederation one's first loyalty is to his Canton rather than the national government, at least in theory.

    Unlike the US, Australia, and New Zealand, all European countries have, to the degree possible, merged the concept of nationhood with ethnicity. Holland is for the Dutch, Denmark is for the Danes, Norway is for Norwegians, Sweden is for the Swedes. There is a homogeneity there that doesn't exist in countries that have traditionally been founded on immigration, such as the former colonies of the US, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. Switzerland is always an exception to every rule - there is a "Swiss" nationality, but really these people are Germanic, French, or Italian in ethnicity, except perhaps for the Romansch speaking minority, which is none of the above.

    So, when immigration does take place in these traditionally homogeneous countries, it can be fraught with peril. When you let a Pakistani in to the US, no one bats an eye. When you do this in Norway, it's pretty obvious.

    But to your larger question of happiness, Sweden has had its share of refugee-related strife, yet still ranks as happy. The rankings are based on per capita GDP, "healthy life expectancy at birth, and a lack of corruption in leadership. But also essential were three things over which individual citizens have a bit more control over: A sense of social support, freedom to make life choices and a culture of generosity."

    Here's what they all have in common:

    1. Strict laws on gun ownership. Even Switzerland, which maintains its militia system and mandatory male gun ownership and guard duty.

    2. Mandatory paid maternity leave. In some countries, you get a direct subsidy for having kids.

    3. Universal access to health care. Literally every other country in the world has a system to guarantee medical care. There are different systems - Switzerland's is private and has a mandate; Canada has a single-payer system administered provincially, but every country but ours has cracked the code on universal health coverage. People simply don't have to worry about getting sick and going broke.

    4. Vacation time is mandated. The United States, Sri Lanka, and some South Pacific Islands are literally the only countries - advanced or otherwise - which do not mandate some length of paid vacation time to people who work. In Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, you're entitled to 27 paid days of vacation and holidays. In Denmark, it's 25. In Canada, 16. In Finland and Iceland, you get 36. In Australia, 30; in New Zealand, 31. In the US, 0.

    5. They all have a sense of nationhood that goes beyond sloganeering, and has to do with a sense of societal teamwork; that they're all pulling together for the greater good. By contrast, in the US we put a premium on individual rights and achievement over the needs of the broader nation, at the risk of being denounced as a collectivist. Other countries balance individual rights and societal responsibility differently than we do, and apparently this has a positive effect on public mood and happiness.

    It should also be mentioned that the citizens of these happy countries are taxed on either their income or on their purchases via VAT - in some cases both - at rates higher than that found in most US states, New York included. They see their taxes being used for things they use like transit, health insurance, and child care rather than, e.g., handouts to military contractors for endless trillion-dollar wars.

    So, no. It's not the lack of diversity that makes a country happy, as evidenced by Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia. It has instead more to do with societal, political, and economic priorities being adjusted in a way that has a positive impact on people's lives.

    Hope that helps.
    This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.

  5. #50
    Member HipKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pekin, IL
    Posts
    8,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Us View Post

    How is it that the happiest countries on earth are the least diversified? You know Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc etc.
    Socialism??
    Let me articulate this for you:
    "I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
    HipKat's Blog

  6. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    With all the horror and sorrow in the world, after it has become official that Trump will be president, it is distressing to her that the left can’t get over their loss and are organizing and planning to continue to undermine Trump for the next four years to diminish any chance of success – biting off the nose to spite the face.

    A true patriotic Democratic Party supporter would have to see through the recent blame game loss antics, the fake news reports, the bullying/intimidation measures taken to impact electors and celebrities, and now labeling of Trump white supporters as white, privileged supremacists as ludicrous and embarrassing.

    A peaceful and cooperative transition, tolerance, inclusion, healing and unity; nonsense. Which party is really the party of hate and divisiveness? Someone didn’t get their trophy and is having a hissy-fit.

    What has happened to our country?

  7. #52
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    With all the horror and sorrow in the world, after it has become official that Trump will be president, it is distressing to her that the left can’t get over their loss and are organizing and planning to continue to undermine Trump for the next four years to diminish any chance of success – biting off the nose to spite the face.

    A true patriotic Democratic Party supporter would have to see through the recent blame game loss antics, the fake news reports, the bullying/intimidation measures taken to impact electors and celebrities, and now labeling of Trump white supporters as white, privileged supremacists as ludicrous and embarrassing.

    A peaceful and cooperative transition, tolerance, inclusion, healing and unity; nonsense. Which party is really the party of hate and divisiveness? Someone didn’t get their trophy and is having a hissy-fit.

    What has happened to our country?
    According to former President Clinton, "Angry white men" is the latest reason for the HRC's loss.

    What has happened to our country Lee?

    A formerly very honorable party has morphed into one whose values now reside almost exclusively in the world identity politics. That party's attendant campaign tactics of obsessive division and hyper demagoguery, makes national unity a bridge way, way too far.

    That is what has happened to our country Lee.

  8. #53
    Member buffalopundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    According to former President Clinton, "Angry white men" is the latest reason for the HRC's loss.

    What has happened to our country Lee?

    A formerly very honorable party has morphed into one whose values now reside almost exclusively in the world identity politics. That party's attendant campaign tactics of obsessive division and hyper demagoguery, makes national unity a bridge way, way too far.

    That is what has happened to our country Lee.
    And another formerly honorable party has morphed into a far-right white nationalist anti-immigrant party, and is part of a similar International movement led by ex-Nazis and Vladimir Putin.
    This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.

  9. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    With all the horror and sorrow in the world, after it has become official that Trump will be president, it is distressing to her that the left can’t get over their loss and are organizing and planning to continue to undermine Trump for the next four years to diminish any chance of success – biting off the nose to spite the face.

    What has happened to our country?
    The exact same thing that happened in 2010 when the Republicans took over Congress, they vowed to block everything Obama proposed.

    If you supported that then, you can't complain about it now.

  10. #55
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by buffalopundit View Post
    And another formerly honorable party has morphed into a far-right white nationalist anti-immigrant party, and is part of a similar International movement led by ex-Nazis and Vladimir Putin.
    There you go again with the hyper demagoguery. BTW, SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS ARE FAR LEFT, not far right.

  11. #56
    Member HipKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pekin, IL
    Posts
    8,744
    Quote Originally Posted by OutsidetheBox View Post
    The exact same thing that happened in 2010 when the Republicans took over Congress, they vowed to block everything Obama proposed.

    If you supported that then, you can't complain about it now.
    I was going to say the same thing but in either case, it's counterproductive. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
    Let me articulate this for you:
    "I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
    HipKat's Blog

  12. #57
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by OutsidetheBox View Post
    The exact same thing that happened in 2010 when the Republicans took over Congress, they vowed to block everything Obama proposed.

    If you supported that then, you can't complain about it now.
    Well, perhaps if President Obama had reached across the isle for input and support of his more significant legislative proposals in 2009 and 2010, he may have avoided the loss of the House in 2010, along with the promised opposition. Rather, he contented himself with soundbites such as "Elections have consequences," and "Hey John, you lost the election." That attitude, along with the Reconciliation tactic employed in the Senate during consideration of the Affordable Care Act, may have flexed Democrat muscle, but weakened bi partisan consensus.

    Most Presidents have found it helpful to engage opposition support for legislation having great national significance.

  13. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Well, perhaps if President Obama had reached across the isle for input and support of his more significant legislative proposals in 2009 and 2010, he may have avoided the loss of the House in 2010, along with the promised opposition. Rather, he contented himself with soundbites such as "Elections have consequences," and "Hey John, you lost the election." That attitude, along with the Reconciliation tactic employed in the Senate during consideration of the Affordable Care Act, may have flexed Democrat muscle, but weakened bi partisan consensus.

    Most Presidents have found it helpful to engage opposition support for legislation having great national significance.
    Give me a break with your reach across the isle BS. The right from day one had no intention of working with him ever on anything.

    It amazes me the short memories people have of the hate filled talk from the right the day after Obama won in 2008. Not just the protests but from Congress and the right wing media. It was a nonstop barrage of FUD. (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

    SMH

  14. #59
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Give me a break with your reach across the isle BS. The right from day one had no intention of working with him ever on anything.

    It amazes me the short memories people have of the hate filled talk from the right the day after Obama won in 2008. Not just the protests but from Congress and the right wing media. It was a nonstop barrage of FUD. (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

    SMH
    Why is it that the frustration of the left so often results in vulgarity?

    No, you give me a break. Concerning the political opposition's support for landmark legislation, such as The Affordable Care Act, most Presidents found reaching across the isle quite helpful. Some examples:

    (1) The Marshall Plan, the legislative components of the Truman Doctrine, and the NATO Treaty all received bi partisan support.

    (2) Lyndon Johnson was able to pass the proposed Kennedy tax cuts in 1964 by reaching across the aisle. Those tax cuts received the support of 21 Republicans in the Senate alone.

    (3) The Johnson-Kennedy 1964 Civil Rights Act received 136 Republican votes in the House, and 30 Republican votes in the Senate.

    (4) Nixon found reaching across the isle helpful in 1972 when a Democrat Senate overwhelmingly passed SALT I 88-2.

    (5) Reagan found Tip O'Neil's support helpful when it came to implementing aspects of his program.

    (6) Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole on Welfare Reform and the Brady Bill.

    It went both ways, Democrat Presidents relied on Republican legislators, and Republican Presidents relied on Democrat legislators.

    More recently, the tone took a serious downturn.

    BTW, President Obama today recommended that President-elect Trump avoid executive orders, and be inclusive of Democrat ideas concerning legislation and issues of significance, because the legislative process is "harder to undo."

    I agree with Obama's current advise. I disagreed with President's 2009 and 2010 approach. If you do not want opposition input into the design of your program, don't expect support. Let's see what Trump does before he is condemned as being "authoritarian," or "non-inclusive." Remember, he does not become President until January 20. Can you wait until January 21 before you condemn him?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; December 21st, 2016 at 11:28 AM.

  15. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by HipKat View Post
    I was going to say the same thing but in either case, it's counterproductive. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
    democratic leadership is not at all talking like republican leadership was in 2010. it is not the same.

    Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    not to mention the president elects personal, years long, racist campaign to de-legitimize the president with the birther conspiracy nonsense

    on the other hand, in 2016:

    “As President-elect Trump indicated last night, investing in infrastructure is an important priority of his,” announced Nancy Pelosi. “We can work together to quickly pass a robust infrastructure jobs bill.”

    Then, how will Democrats work with President Trump?

    SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: We challenge him -- work with us and keep your promises to blue-collar America.

    what lee is talking about are criticisms of trump generally since the election.

    - stands alone and in opposition to his own party in refusing to accept intelligence consensus on Russian hacking
    - promoting doubt in our intelligence agencies when he doesn't like their conclusion
    - hasn't separated his business interests from his soon to be official duties. scheduled an announcement, cancelled it, hasn't rescheduled
    - cabinet appointees that are the polar opposite of the swamp draining he promised
    - flipped from punishing those who outsource jobs to rewarding those who outsource less than what they threatened to
    - has not had a press conference since july. none scheduled. every other president elect in the last 40 years had a press conference within days of election
    - seems far more interested in gloating about the election than focusing on governing even though he takes office in a month
    - continuing petty personal teen angst twitter tirades against citizens of this country

    those criticisms are not without merit lee. maybe instead of whining about democrats, you would like to take up a few and explain why trump should not be criticized?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •