This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Disgusting new Giuliani ad - Page 3 — Brooklynian

Disgusting new Giuliani ad

13»

Comments

  • Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad

    eggcream wrote: [quote=queencallipygos][quote=eggcream]Wow, the goverment is going to check up on what books I read? Who gives a s*it.
    Okay, what books HAVE you checked out recently? I bet I could find one that someone would have some problem with.

    Jesus, you're worried about a minute possibity that someone will check out what you're reading at the library but you have no problem with the slow erosion of your individual rights with some of the examples I mentioned by the nanny goverment. Sad.

    Nice try at deflecting my question instead of answering it.

    But to turn around your question -- if you're already so annoyed that the government has turned "Nanny" on you, then why are you supporting them imposing even more control on the public?? Are you saying that the only response to government control is...to add even more government control?
  • quijibo wrote: yes. the "war on a noun" is a neo-con invention with no end.
    Like the War on Poverty? LBJ, that crazy neo-con.

    The ad is truly appalling.
  • sprite wrote: [quote=quijibo]yes. the "war on a noun" is a neo-con invention with no end.
    Like the War on Poverty? LBJ, that crazy neo-con.

    The ad is truly appalling.

    aren't you glad we no longer have poverty... thanks to LBJ?
    LBJ fue un gran mojon cochino!
  • BBC video documentary: The Power of Nightmares, where Adam Curtis
    argues that the neo-con is borne from failed liberal dreams such as
    LBJ's great society



    3 part series. well worth watching
  • I second that. Very worth watching.

    Q, do you have a link for that? I got into an argument over neo-conservatism on another board and I wanted to point people to it (no video capacity on this bbs) but didn't have the link.
  • Did anyone read the article on Guiliani in the NYT today - ouch!
  • quijibo wrote: BBC video documentary: The Power of Nightmares, where Adam Curtis
    argues that the neo-con is borne from failed liberal dreams such as
    LBJ's great society



    3 part series. well worth watching
    Right, you mean the liberal dream of trillions of tax dollars gone to "help" poverty..welfare, food stamps, public housing.... Cradle to grave, the liberal motto.

    "Continued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
  • stacey wrote: Did anyone read the article on Guiliani in the NYT today - ouch!
    i h8 the NYT but that editorial was spot on
    "we're endorsing mccain not because of mccain
    but because giuliani is such a hateful piece of shit"

    i laughed out loud
  • Giuliani has been running a really weak campaign too. It looks like he's going to get trounced in Florida. My theory is because he was feted so much in the beginning as the savior of the Republican party as well as 9/11, he didn't feel like he had to work for the nomination. He's a much better campaigner when he's the underdog.

    He didn't run a good campaign in '97, but since he was running against Messinger, he didn't have to.
  • eggcream wrote: [quote=quijibo]BBC video documentary: The Power of Nightmares, where Adam Curtis
    argues that the neo-con is borne from failed liberal dreams such as
    LBJ's great society



    3 part series. well worth watching
    Right, you mean the liberal dream of trillions of tax dollars gone to "help" poverty..welfare, food stamps, public housing.... Cradle to grave, the liberal motto.

    "Continued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

    ...You DO know that FDR instigated dozens of public assistance programs during his administration, right?
  • eggcream wrote:
    Right, you mean the liberal dream of trillions of tax dollars gone to "help" poverty..welfare, food stamps, public housing.... Cradle to grave, the liberal motto.

    "Continued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
    The question of whether welfare promotes or inhibits social mobility is an interesting one. It's not so hard to measure, but tricky to interpret the numbers, as there are all sorts of confounding factors like entrenched cultural and class differences. But broadly speaking, those Western societies with the strongest welfare safety nets enjoy greater social mobility than the US. I've seen some studies that put the US in the middle, and others that put it at or near the bottom, compared with other rich countries.

    This puts the lie to the American dream, that anyone can make it. In practice, people who start in the bottom fifth seem to have a somewhat better chance of making it to the top fifth if they live in a country where food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education are more or less guaranteed by the government.

    Clearly there will be a class of multigenerationally welfare dependent indigents despite the most generous welfare system, just as there are generations living in poverty under the least generous regimes. But does increasing welfare trap a larger fraction of the poor in poverty down the generations by destroying their spirit? The numbers don't seem to support that, and if anything, the opposite seems to be the case.

    Here is some recent data from the OECD:
    http://fiordiliji.sourceoecd.org/pdf/society_glance/18.pdf
  • I would say that it is not welfare itself that causes intergenerational trapping, but how it is administered. In this country, welfare recipients are treated punitively, almost like criminals for being on welfare, and they are often given impossible requirements which keep them from acquiring education or an actual paying job, and they are cut off for the slightest infractions.

    There are stories of welfare recipients who were forced to give up schooling to meet workfare requirements, schooling that would have enabled them to get a paying job and OFF welfare. Workfare, for the most part, does not teach job skills or anything useful, and is almost slavery. Also, I know of a story where a woman took her welfare benefits, and through dint of hard work and careful saving (she made clothes for her kids rather than buy them; she squeezed a dollar till it screamed) managed to save about $3000, where she was then threatened with jail for fraud. What she learned was that she had to spend every dollar she was given. Which kinda defeats the anti-poverty purpose when you have to save to build wealth. She was trying to work herself off of welfare and got threatened with jail.

    And I watched while my best friend and his wife tried to work themselves off welfare. It really isn't easy, but they managed to do it.

    And also, let's put the welfare leads to intergenerational poverty myth to bed. Multigenerational welfare families are rare, though they get the most press. Most people who've had to rely on welfare stayed on welfare for an average of two years.
  • sack of shit loses
    yayyyyyyyy
    go team!!!!
  • Yeah, he'll probably be out of the race before the end of the week.
  • I just read an article mentioning that he is preparing to drop out and endorse McCain tomorrow, in California.

    Guess we'll see...

    ***edit:

    Here's the AP story link:

    Guiliani prepares to exit, back McCain
  • Thank God. The Giuliani era is over.

    Remember those caricatures of Giuliani drawn as Hitler? I thought that was a bit extreme. Now *Mussolini* I could understand!

    Good riddance!
Sign In or Register to comment.