Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Host -
What did that have to do with anything discussed here?
That had nothing to do with the topic at hand and it had absolutely nothing to do with MSD's post that you quoted.
Were you just looking for a place to post this? Why here?
Nice segway though, to get from MSD's post to your point, I almost thought your point was going to be relevant.
|
KMA...... I'll cite roachboy's earlier comments on this thread in support of my
response to Mrselfdestruct's outline of a proposal to add a new dimension of
"hoop jumping" controls as a prerequisite to continued eligibility for welfare financial aid from the government:
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so wait...your "common ground" thing then really is about setting up terms of agreement and/or debate that simply erases folk who you decide are too far to the left of you--whatever that means--
interesting conception of the notion of "common ground" you've got going there.
its kinda of like tv that way--positions that take too long to outline or dont fit into the format for other reasons simply get no airtime--between the positions that do talk in nice soundbites and look pretty on camera, it is a kind of parlor game, this talk of consensus or common ground. you can congratulate yourself on points in common in discussions amongst people who basically agree with you up front, and simply pretend the others are not there, do not exist.
i notice that some of the forum's more consistent hardline conservatives have no problem posting here...i expect that even some of the militia set would be fine with all this...but no-one from the left of the dlc-dominated democratic party though.
how about that?
how about that?
you might think that that in itself makes your understanding of common ground into a bit of a problem.
why are conservatives so obsessed with controlling the terms of discussion while pretending they are interested in consensus?........................
|
I responded to MrSelfdestruct's post on this thread just as I would if I encountered it on any other thread here at TFP Politics.
The post struck me as containing similar controlling tendencies as I see used as the excuse to back the "bankruptcy reform and consumer protection" 2005 senate bill. IMO, it is a mindset that attempts to justifiy an agenda of huge inconvenience and penalty for the compliant majority in order to make ABSOLUTELY sure that no abuse of the bankruptcy law or of welfare eligibility rules (or whatever class of ordinary public, practitioners of this controlling mindset targets next......).
I ask you, KMA, is it fair to disqualify huge numbers of legitimate Chapter 7 bankruptcy filers from the same debt protection that currently exists, in order
to prevent abuse of the system by an assuredly smaller number? Is it fair
to add new hurdles and new privacy invasion on all welfare recipients to prevent system abuse by a small number?
Is it fair to hold ordinary people to tough new levels of accountability even as
those who control this agenda isolate and exempt themselves and their wealthy corporate benefactors?
Posting on these threads is how I deliver my message of (hopefully) well documented opinion, and of informed and reasoned protest. I engage those who disagree with me. For the most part, they support and give a "pass" to a
federal executive and legislative regime that I believe is the most malignant in U.S. history. The current government, and by extension, it's supporters, is the greatest threat to my family's and heirs' future. The number of abortions performed, welfare checks pilfered, and abusive chapter 7 filings, are, in comparison, non-issues for me and mine, compared to the damage that Bush, Delay, et al, inflict on this country every day.
I doubt that many TFP Politics readers were aware that indicted corporation
Bacardi Rum is propping up Tom Delay financially while they both pay lawyers to provide legal representation to defend against the same investigation.
I accept that I have little in common with you and with those who often agree with you. A propagandized voting public has unwittingly ceded control of our national government to one political party that shows itself to be incapable of running an open, accountable, ethical, or fiscally responsible
federal government. Forgive me for posting evidence and commentary about this disturbing tread on this TFP Politics thread.