I got mine

[VoiceOfReason]

What do you define as a "loser"? Someone who has less money than someone else? Someone in the bottom x%? Someone who doesn't meet your standards of modern living?

We've established that you aren't calling them losers in life. You're the one stuck on it. We can call them "economic losers" if that makes it easier for you.
Answer the question.

You mean the question above? I don't generally define people as winners or losers. Nor do I use terms like makers and takers.

My original glib statement was in reference to AG's demonizing the poor. Nothing more than that.

[Marine Hokie]

What do you define as a "loser"? Someone who has less money than someone else? Someone in the bottom x%? Someone who doesn't meet your standards of modern living?

We've established that you aren't calling them losers in life. You're the one stuck on it. We can call them "economic losers" if that makes it easier for you.
Answer the question.

You mean the question above? I don't generally define people as winners or losers. Nor do I use terms like makers and takers.

My original glib statement was in reference to AG's demonizing the poor. Nothing more than that.

So are you backing off on your statement?

Very true. For there to be winners, there MUST be losers. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. What matters after the winners have been decided is how the losers are treated. IMHO, the winners blaming the problems of society on the losers is not the right way to go.

[VoiceOfReason]

Not at all. I stand by that statement.

[Marine Hokie]

Not at all. I stand by that statement.

Then answer my question. How do you define the economic loser you're referring to in that statement? (Use whatever word you want, we've agreed that we don't mean "loser" in a derogatory sense. Let's move beyond that.)

[RiverguyVT]

Very true. For there to be winners, there MUST be losers. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. What matters after the winners have been decided is how the losers are treated. IMHO, the winners blaming the problems of society on the losers is not the right way to go.

That's just an incredibly wrong, narrow minded statement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Florida Hokie]

Obama got elected on "it's time" for a black in the white house. A white wouldn't have been elected on such a thin background as a one term senator and communist agitator. And a white wouldn't have been reelected after failing the first term so miserably. Obama had the racist vote. Many voted for his reelection to give him a chance to redeem himself and not have the first black president be such a miserable failure.

Disagree, Obama was elected because McCain and Palin was one of the crappiest tickets ever put up in the history of politics (just behind Carter Mondale).

[Florida Hokie]

Not at all. I stand by that statement.

You stand by your statement that there must be losers in order to have winners yet you don't label people as winners and losers?

Mind....blown

[USN_Hokie]

Obama got elected on "it's time" for a black in the white house. A white wouldn't have been elected on such a thin background as a one term senator and communist agitator. And a white wouldn't have been reelected after failing the first term so miserably. Obama had the racist vote. Many voted for his reelection to give him a chance to redeem himself and not have the first black president be such a miserable failure.

Disagree, Obama was elected because McCain and Palin was one of the crappiest tickets ever put up in the history of politics (just behind Carter Mondale).

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

[Florida Hokie]

Obama got elected on "it's time" for a black in the white house. A white wouldn't have been elected on such a thin background as a one term senator and communist agitator. And a white wouldn't have been reelected after failing the first term so miserably. Obama had the racist vote. Many voted for his reelection to give him a chance to redeem himself and not have the first black president be such a miserable failure.

Disagree, Obama was elected because McCain and Palin was one of the crappiest tickets ever put up in the history of politics (just behind Carter Mondale).

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

Romney was a horrible candidate. He was the guy that couldn't beat McCain in the previous primary. His own party didn't like him.

[BigDave]

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

And just wait - the "moderates" and liberals will fall all over themselves to promote Christie leading up to 2016 ... until he secures the nomination, at which point he will be the most vile and evil person known to man.

It's funny how it works like that.

And the people who said that John McCain was too old (he was 72 in 2008 and note that he's still alive and kicking) will have no problem with Hillary's age (she will be 69 in 2016).

[VoiceOfReason]

Obama got elected on "it's time" for a black in the white house. A white wouldn't have been elected on such a thin background as a one term senator and communist agitator. And a white wouldn't have been reelected after failing the first term so miserably. Obama had the racist vote. Many voted for his reelection to give him a chance to redeem himself and not have the first black president be such a miserable failure.

Disagree, Obama was elected because McCain and Palin was one of the crappiest tickets ever put up in the history of politics (just behind Carter Mondale).

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

If you think the reason the Rs lost the last two elections was their candidates lack of commitment to hard core right wing ideology, then by all means run Ted Cruz. The country will give you exactly what you deserve. Love, Hillary.

[nolanvt]

There has always been poverty and there always will be poverty. How a society responds to their poorest citizens is usually an indication of the advancement and morality of that society.

There is no defense for criminal actions and you will hear none from me. However, IMHO there are plenty of issues in this country that effect the economy for all citizens to work on... without scapegoating the poor.

You're right, except that you think government programs are "society" acting. Before the progressive era and the new deal, members of society already helped the poor. Through advances in technology and the modernizing economy, their condition was rapidly improving, along with everyone else's. Government wealth transfer programs can never match economic freedom in reducing poverty. All they do is make democratic voters feel good about themselves, like they're somehow helping the poor with other people's money, without actually having to do anything.

Government programs are one method of providing assistance. There are plenty of organizations (homeless shelters, womens shelters) out there today doing good works. Religious organizations (Catholic Charities, etc.) organize time and finding from their members as well. I have donated my time and money to many of these organizations and I suspect many on here have done so as well. (It's not a contest.)

Do you have the same disdain for soup kitchens as you do for food stamps? I mean, what do the poor do to earn that meal from the soup kitchen?

IMHO, the tax dollars spent to help people in need is the BEST use of my money. There are MuCH worse spending issues than poverty.

That's the liberal fallacy. Poverty spending creates poverty. Just look at your 60 year failed war on poverty. Poverty is created by the jobs destroyed to run such programs and the well documented situation of government paying better than real work for the poor. Government assistance is a roach hotel, not allowing those who enter to escape.

And really, you think I'm ignorant on minorities and life in the hood. You clearly are. EBT and government benefits are nothing more than currency for cigarettes and booze in those communities. There are of course some who need help and aren't gaming the system. But they're the minority. I've yet to meet one actually. The rest construct their lives to maximize government assistance and minimize work. Or if they have work, they're angry and bitter about it. As if the world owes them something and their job is beneath them. The way we deal with poverty is way out of whack, giving too much power and an undeserved assumption of innocence to the impoverished.

I wouldn't say poverty spending creates poverty. Excess amounts of poverty spending certainly enables it.

[Florida Hokie]

Not even the most ardent liberal leaning person should want Hillary in 2016. It'd be nice to have a President not names Bush or Clinton again. Whether a Bush or a Clinton, they are all part of a power structure that doesn't actually serve the people.

Obama got elected on "it's time" for a black in the white house. A white wouldn't have been elected on such a thin background as a one term senator and communist agitator. And a white wouldn't have been reelected after failing the first term so miserably. Obama had the racist vote. Many voted for his reelection to give him a chance to redeem himself and not have the first black president be such a miserable failure.

Disagree, Obama was elected because McCain and Palin was one of the crappiest tickets ever put up in the history of politics (just behind Carter Mondale).

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

If you think the reason the Rs lost the last two elections was their candidates lack of commitment to hard core right wing ideology, then by all means run Ted Cruz. The country will give you exactly what you deserve. Love, Hillary.

[VoiceOfReason]

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

And just wait - the "moderates" and liberals will fall all over themselves to promote Christie leading up to 2016 ... until he secures the nomination, at which point he will be the most vile and evil person known to man.

It's funny how it works like that.

And the people who said that John McCain was too old (he was 72 in 2008 and note that he's still alive and kicking) will have no problem with Hillary's age (she will be 69 in 2016).

Well... What does it matter what the libs say. They will vote for Rs in the same numbers that people on this board will vote for Ds, right away pigs are flying. Christie seems to be the only non wacko in the field, so yeah the moderates would prefer him to say... Ted Cruz. Some will vote for him in the general election and some will not. But if you run Cruz, you won't get any moderate votes either.

IMHO, Romney would have been a good president. At heart, he is a moderate R. But he had to lie his ass off to get the nomination, including his stance on Romneycare. And the country saw thru the etch-a-sketch.

[VoiceOfReason]

Not even the most ardent liberal leaning person should want Hillary in 2016. It'd be nice to have a President not names Bush or Clinton again. Whether a Bush or a Clinton, they are all part of a power structure that doesn't actually serve the people.

Obama got elected on "it's time" for a black in the white house. A white wouldn't have been elected on such a thin background as a one term senator and communist agitator. And a white wouldn't have been reelected after failing the first term so miserably. Obama had the racist vote. Many voted for his reelection to give him a chance to redeem himself and not have the first black president be such a miserable failure.

Disagree, Obama was elected because McCain and Palin was one of the crappiest tickets ever put up in the history of politics (just behind Carter Mondale).

Which is funny because I distinctly recall all the "moderates" saying that McCain was our only chance to win.

FWIW, Romney was a great candidate IMO. Didn't seem to help much. Voters are idiots.

If you think the reason the Rs lost the last two elections was their candidates lack of commitment to hard core right wing ideology, then by all means run Ted Cruz. The country will give you exactly what you deserve. Love, Hillary.

I mention Hillary above only because I think you guys hate her more than Biden. Those seem to be the two most likely candidates at the moment. And both of them would love to run against Ted Cruz. They would not have to break a sweat. Simple math.

[BigDave]

I mention Hillary above only because I think you guys hate her more than Biden. Those seem to be the two most likely candidates at the moment. And both of them would love to run against Ted Cruz. They would not have to break a sweat. Simple math.

0.0% chance Joe the Biden is the candidate

[RiverguyVT]

I mention Hillary above only because I think you guys hate her more than Biden. Those seem to be the two most likely candidates at the moment. And both of them would love to run against Ted Cruz. They would not have to break a sweat. Simple math.

You mention Hillary! because you think we hate her more, or because she is clearly (clearly!) the far & away front runner?
I wouldn't think what you see as others' collective hatred as being at all relevant.