Suckfootsoles Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Just now, Snakeater said: I made a typing mistake Suck it. I know how it works and how they treat women. You still do not make any sense in your spouting. Why not take a lesson in how to spout and make sense at the same time. Freedom of Speech not allowed for you fucking Europeans or Democrats in US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 The rules here are the same as they are in Rants & Flame Wars. Insults are allowed, and so is bad logic, emotional argumentation, insults, lies, and general trollishness. Remember, if you come here 1) it is at your own risk, 2) you will convince nobody of anything, 3) Reason does not exist here, and 4) if you can manage to be a complete asshole in this forum then you stand a very good chance of being elected to a government office. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StnCld316 Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Suckfootsoles said: Freedom of Speech not allowed for you fucking Europeans or Democrats in US. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suckfootsoles Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Just now, StnCld316 said: He is next. Kim ILLI crazy ass, were are planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 giphy.mp4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thestarider Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 My hometown... a very good article about Americas heartland. and why President is just that the President. Where big-government conservatism rules The birthplace of populism supports President Trump’s policy of lower taxes with more protection Jul 1st 2017 <use xlink:href="/assets/icons--33fb586b88d14cf55598686375498cac05d9f8cc--.svg#mail" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"></use> THE PLAINS OF south-west Kansas are so flat that, looking towards the horizon, it sometimes seems possible to detect the curvature of the Earth. This is a place of mile-long freight trains, cathedral-like grain silos, occasional tornadoes and homages to “The Wizard of Oz”. The town of Liberal is said to have been named for an early settler famous among travellers for being free with drinking water. Liberal is conservative in a moderate Midwestern kind of way. It is also changing fast. Its big National Beef Packing plant relies on Hispanic migrants. Four-fifths of the children in Liberal’s public-school system are Hispanic. This should make the town receptive to Democrats, but Mr Trump easily won the county of which it forms part. Liberal’s mayor, Joe Denoyer, is a disc jockey at the local radio station, playing country music and taking calls from listeners in the morning, then hanging up his headphones to sell advertising in the afternoon. He was raised in a Democratic family near Chicago and moved to Liberal in search of work. Asked about his political conversion, he recalls being impressed when Ronald Reagan joked about an assassination attempt on him, and later told Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down that wall”. Mr Denoyer voted for Mr Trump, though he thinks it unlikely that the president will keep his promises. Being mayor means getting into the weeds of local politics: halfway through the interview at the station his boss wanders in and complains that the city has incorrectly served a notice to clear some overgrown grass in an alleyway near his house; Mr Denoyer says he will look into it. Kansas’s plains have played a big part in America’s political history. In 1891 members of the Kansas Farmers’ Alliance supposedly coined the term “populist” to describe their movement. In the presidential election in 1892 the candidate of the People’s Party carried five states from a standing start, on a platform of support for farmers and abandoning the gold standard. There was a nativist streak to its ideas: Mary Elizabeth Lease, a Kansas populist and suffragette, warned about a “tide of Mongols” invading America. Though the party contained strains of anti-Semitism and racism, writes John Judis in “The Populist Explosion”, these were secondary. The core of its appeal was an anti-elitism that has been part of Midwestern politics ever since. The People’s Party was later incorporated into the Democratic Party. A little over a century on, Kansas populism had changed again. In 2004 Thomas Frank lamented in “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” that the leftish populism of Lease and her ilk had been replaced by a rightish sort. Republicans, he argued, had managed to bamboozle his home state, selling voters economic policies that were not to their advantage by wrapping them up in emotive messages about abortion and guns. Kathy Cramer puts the question more succinctly in “The Politics of Resentment”: why would someone without teeth not support government-funded dental care? Her interviewees farther north, in Wisconsin, provided the answer: “The government must be mishandling my hard-earned dollars, because my taxes keep going up and clearly they are not coming back to benefit people like me. So why would I want an expansion of government?” A wetter version of Texas Kansas’s current governor, Sam Brownback, has run with this kind of thinking. When he took office in 2011, promising to turn the state into a wetter version of Texas, with no state income tax and lots of incentives for businesses to move there, the Kansas Speaks survey run by Fort Hays State University showed that voters were keen on the idea. Since then the tax cuts have failed to produce the hoped-for economic miracle; instead, the government has repeatedly missed its revenue targets and services have been cut (the Republican-controlled state legislature voted to roll back the tax cuts in early June). The Kansas Speaks poll suggests that but for Chris Christie in New Jersey, Governor Brownback would be the nation’s least popular governor. It also shows that a majority now favour tax rises, and that most Kansans think their own taxes went up after the state cut income tax. When voters get what they thought they wanted, they do not always like it. Advertisement: Replay Ad Advertisement 3 Mr Trump’s approval rating is more than twice that of Governor Brownback’s in Kansas. One reason is that he talks of more protection for his voters but without proposing tax increases. A consistent finding in the General Social Survey is that people favour tax cuts but like increased government spending even more. On the campaign trail, the president denied there was a trade-off, insisting that people can have lower taxes without cuts to social security (pensions) or Medicare (health care for the elderly); and a pro-business administration that will also prevent companies from moving jobs overseas. When researching a book on Tea Party activists in 2010, Theda Skocpol of Harvard University found that many wanted just this combination but ended up voting for shrink-the-government conservatives. Many of these activists already had a favourable impression of Mr Trump, who was then telling anyone who would listen that Barack Obama was not born in America. “The promise of social insurance for white people plus restrictions on trade and immigration is very appealing,” says Ms Skocpol. “It is not a mixture that has been on offer before.” For all Mr Trump’s railing against NAFTA, trade provokes less visceral feelings than immigration; a lot of voters say they do not know whether they favour more restrictions on imports. But there is a heartfelt nativist streak in support for Mr Trump, just as there was when 19th-century populists were denouncing the Mongol invasion. The share of people living in America who were born abroad reached 15% in 1890, then declined after restrictions were imposed on immigration in the 1920s, to a low of 5% in 1970. Since then it has risen again, reaching 13% in 2010. Many of the president’s supporters feel that such people are not proper Americans; 63% of Trump voters said that to be truly American it was either very or fairly important to have been born in the country (42% of Clinton voters thought the same). One reason may be that voters failed to distinguish between Hispanics and illegal immigrants, a distinction the president has blurred. Since assuming office, the president has continued to condemn illegal immigration, but also sometimes seemed to extend a welcome to the legal sort. His White House is split on this: some advisers would halt legal immigration too. Mr Buckley, the law professor and speechwriter (and himself an immigrant from Canada), thinks that the president should copy the immigration law of 1924, which handed out citizenship to newcomers in proportion to the country’s existing racial make-up (which in practice meant giving preference to northern Europeans). Mr Buckley reasons that having a boardroom or a cabinet that reflects the country’s ethnic make-up is generally held to be a good thing, so why not apply the same logic to immigration quotas? Democrats resist such thinking as racially motivated, but they are in a bind. The long progressive consensus that started with the New Deal in the 1930s and lasted until the mid-1960s coincided precisely with the most restrictive immigration laws in the country’s history. There is a tension between immigration and redistribution that the party has yet to resolve. Republicans in Liberal argue that the melting pot is working well there. The bakery sells creamy quinceanera cakes; the newcomers seem to like the annual Ozfest (past participants include Judy Garland’s stand-in and a smattering of munchkins). Citizenship classes at the community college are oversubscribed. This strain in the Republican Party is being squashed by a White House partly staffed by Californians desperate to prevent the kind of ethnic change that swept through their home state from spreading to the rest of the country. Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump’s chief strategist, who worked in Hollywood for a while, once said that the defeat of a bill in Congress that would have given illegal immigrants without a criminal record a path to citizenship was an achievement comparable to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The stop-America-from-becoming-California movement is a window onto a more general truth. In addition to the divides on education, and between cities and countryside, American politics has become polarised along ethnic lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suckfootsoles Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 On 7/5/2017 at 7:59 PM, Thestarider said: My hometown... a very good article about Americas heartland. and why President is just that the President. Where big-government conservatism rules The birthplace of populism supports President Trump’s policy of lower taxes with more protection Jul 1st 2017 THE PLAINS OF south-west Kansas are so flat that, looking towards the horizon, it sometimes seems possible to detect the curvature of the Earth. This is a place of mile-long freight trains, cathedral-like grain silos, occasional tornadoes and homages to “The Wizard of Oz”. The town of Liberal is said to have been named for an early settler famous among travellers for being free with drinking water. Liberal is conservative in a moderate Midwestern kind of way. It is also changing fast. Its big National Beef Packing plant relies on Hispanic migrants. Four-fifths of the children in Liberal’s public-school system are Hispanic. This should make the town receptive to Democrats, but Mr Trump easily won the county of which it forms part. Liberal’s mayor, Joe Denoyer, is a disc jockey at the local radio station, playing country music and taking calls from listeners in the morning, then hanging up his headphones to sell advertising in the afternoon. He was raised in a Democratic family near Chicago and moved to Liberal in search of work. Asked about his political conversion, he recalls being impressed when Ronald Reagan joked about an assassination attempt on him, and later told Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down that wall”. Mr Denoyer voted for Mr Trump, though he thinks it unlikely that the president will keep his promises. Being mayor means getting into the weeds of local politics: halfway through the interview at the station his boss wanders in and complains that the city has incorrectly served a notice to clear some overgrown grass in an alleyway near his house; Mr Denoyer says he will look into it. Kansas’s plains have played a big part in America’s political history. In 1891 members of the Kansas Farmers’ Alliance supposedly coined the term “populist” to describe their movement. In the presidential election in 1892 the candidate of the People’s Party carried five states from a standing start, on a platform of support for farmers and abandoning the gold standard. There was a nativist streak to its ideas: Mary Elizabeth Lease, a Kansas populist and suffragette, warned about a “tide of Mongols” invading America. Though the party contained strains of anti-Semitism and racism, writes John Judis in “The Populist Explosion”, these were secondary. The core of its appeal was an anti-elitism that has been part of Midwestern politics ever since. The People’s Party was later incorporated into the Democratic Party. A little over a century on, Kansas populism had changed again. In 2004 Thomas Frank lamented in “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” that the leftish populism of Lease and her ilk had been replaced by a rightish sort. Republicans, he argued, had managed to bamboozle his home state, selling voters economic policies that were not to their advantage by wrapping them up in emotive messages about abortion and guns. Kathy Cramer puts the question more succinctly in “The Politics of Resentment”: why would someone without teeth not support government-funded dental care? Her interviewees farther north, in Wisconsin, provided the answer: “The government must be mishandling my hard-earned dollars, because my taxes keep going up and clearly they are not coming back to benefit people like me. So why would I want an expansion of government?” A wetter version of Texas Kansas’s current governor, Sam Brownback, has run with this kind of thinking. When he took office in 2011, promising to turn the state into a wetter version of Texas, with no state income tax and lots of incentives for businesses to move there, the Kansas Speaks survey run by Fort Hays State University showed that voters were keen on the idea. Since then the tax cuts have failed to produce the hoped-for economic miracle; instead, the government has repeatedly missed its revenue targets and services have been cut (the Republican-controlled state legislature voted to roll back the tax cuts in early June). The Kansas Speaks poll suggests that but for Chris Christie in New Jersey, Governor Brownback would be the nation’s least popular governor. It also shows that a majority now favour tax rises, and that most Kansans think their own taxes went up after the state cut income tax. When voters get what they thought they wanted, they do not always like it. Advertisement: Replay Ad Advertisement 3 Mr Trump’s approval rating is more than twice that of Governor Brownback’s in Kansas. One reason is that he talks of more protection for his voters but without proposing tax increases. A consistent finding in the General Social Survey is that people favour tax cuts but like increased government spending even more. On the campaign trail, the president denied there was a trade-off, insisting that people can have lower taxes without cuts to social security (pensions) or Medicare (health care for the elderly); and a pro-business administration that will also prevent companies from moving jobs overseas. When researching a book on Tea Party activists in 2010, Theda Skocpol of Harvard University found that many wanted just this combination but ended up voting for shrink-the-government conservatives. Many of these activists already had a favourable impression of Mr Trump, who was then telling anyone who would listen that Barack Obama was not born in America. “The promise of social insurance for white people plus restrictions on trade and immigration is very appealing,” says Ms Skocpol. “It is not a mixture that has been on offer before.” For all Mr Trump’s railing against NAFTA, trade provokes less visceral feelings than immigration; a lot of voters say they do not know whether they favour more restrictions on imports. But there is a heartfelt nativist streak in support for Mr Trump, just as there was when 19th-century populists were denouncing the Mongol invasion. The share of people living in America who were born abroad reached 15% in 1890, then declined after restrictions were imposed on immigration in the 1920s, to a low of 5% in 1970. Since then it has risen again, reaching 13% in 2010. Many of the president’s supporters feel that such people are not proper Americans; 63% of Trump voters said that to be truly American it was either very or fairly important to have been born in the country (42% of Clinton voters thought the same). One reason may be that voters failed to distinguish between Hispanics and illegal immigrants, a distinction the president has blurred. Since assuming office, the president has continued to condemn illegal immigration, but also sometimes seemed to extend a welcome to the legal sort. His White House is split on this: some advisers would halt legal immigration too. Mr Buckley, the law professor and speechwriter (and himself an immigrant from Canada), thinks that the president should copy the immigration law of 1924, which handed out citizenship to newcomers in proportion to the country’s existing racial make-up (which in practice meant giving preference to northern Europeans). Mr Buckley reasons that having a boardroom or a cabinet that reflects the country’s ethnic make-up is generally held to be a good thing, so why not apply the same logic to immigration quotas? Democrats resist such thinking as racially motivated, but they are in a bind. The long progressive consensus that started with the New Deal in the 1930s and lasted until the mid-1960s coincided precisely with the most restrictive immigration laws in the country’s history. There is a tension between immigration and redistribution that the party has yet to resolve. Republicans in Liberal argue that the melting pot is working well there. The bakery sells creamy quinceanera cakes; the newcomers seem to like the annual Ozfest (past participants include Judy Garland’s stand-in and a smattering of munchkins). Citizenship classes at the community college are oversubscribed. This strain in the Republican Party is being squashed by a White House partly staffed by Californians desperate to prevent the kind of ethnic change that swept through their home state from spreading to the rest of the country. Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump’s chief strategist, who worked in Hollywood for a while, once said that the defeat of a bill in Congress that would have given illegal immigrants without a criminal record a path to citizenship was an achievement comparable to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The stop-America-from-becoming-California movement is a window onto a more general truth. In addition to the divides on education, and between cities and countryside, American politics has become polarised along ethnic lines. This is not a U.S. article when you have words used like "favour", "favourable", "Ozfest","polarized" it has to be coming from the new Caliphate and guesses on what goes here, fake article. U.S. says favor, Ozzfest, polorized. One member of Trump's staff having worked in Hollywood constitutes a California cabinet? Hollywood is liberal and tax monster socialists. Reagan gave citizenship automatically to millions of illegals, a lot good that has done. Illegals suck my tax money with free healthcare, schooling, iphones, food, fuck this shit, they broke the law stand in line like others waiting to become citizens. I know the new Caliphate "come on in. free everything for you, hardworking tax payers do not mind." I do not understand why left the left EU? Great job Merkel controlling the demonstrators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suckfootsoles Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Suckfootsoles said: This is not a U.S. article when you have words used like "favour", "favourable", "Ozfest","polarized" it has to be coming from the new Caliphate and guesses on what goes here, fake article. U.S. says favor, Ozzfest, polorized. One member of Trump's staff having worked in Hollywood constitutes a California cabinet? Hollywood is liberal and tax monster socialists. Reagan gave citizenship automatically to millions of illegals, a lot good that has done. Illegals suck my tax money with free healthcare, schooling, iphones, food, fuck this shit, they broke the law stand in line like others waiting to become citizens. I know the new Caliphate "come on in. free everything for you, hardworking tax payers do not mind." I do not understand why left the left EU? Great job Merkel controlling the demonstrators. Never had protectionism not with Obozo, need it even more now ----- and restoration of the response arrow, this shows more of 100% censorship beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts