Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 http://www.speaker.gov/general/12-taylor-swift-reactions-president-obamas-free-college-idea?Source=GovD /Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 On the Rand Paul front, if he wants to be a serious contender, he needs to maybe think about not saying stuff like this: At a breakfast event Wednesday, Jan. 14 in New Hampshire, the Kentucky Republican and potential presidential candidate spoke out against a public safety net that catches too many people who don’t need help. "The thing is, all of these programs, there’s always somebody who’s deserving. (But) everybody in this room knows somebody who is gaming the system," Paul said. The proof? Look no further than the diagnoses landing people on disability, he added. "Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club," he said to laughter. "Who doesn’t get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts? Everybody over 40 has a little back pain."...Paul’s quip might make for a good soundbite, but it’s not rooted in reality. We rate the statement False. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 we rate Politifact's inability to recognize hyperbole as: very high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 we rate Politifact's inability to recognize hyperbole as: very high Kind of like Rand Paul's inability to not hyperbolize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 This is from the last thread, regarding Rand Paul holding positions that would keep him from getting the nomination.Is it possible that Rand Paul could change that thinking? In other words, can he make the case that there can be good ideas that both Republicans and Democrats agree on and it would be irresponsible not to pursue them and that it doesn't make him any less of a Republican? Or have the yahoos so taken over the party that anyone not toeing the party line gets excommunicated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davos Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 we rate Politifact's inability to recognize hyperbole as: very high The implication is that Mr Paul was using hyperbole and that this makes what he was saying significantly less noxious and detached from reality. This is not backed up by the statement itself. A very large percentage of strongly conservative individuals are predisposed to believe that a significant percentage of those receiving almost any kind of government aid are manipulating the system to receive aid they would not be receiving if the facts of their case were known. This is a meme that has been a fundamental element of the conservative message for pushing 50 years now, one that has largely been perpetuated by the use of anecdotal evidence either devoid from contextualizing statistics or backed by badly distorted data. So the people Mr Paul was speaking to would be inclined to believe exactly what he said on its face and not interpret it as hyperbole. Further, most people have indeed experienced some back-pain in their lives as well as some meaningful amount of anxiety. So when Mr Paul states that more than 50% of individuals on disability are there due to back pain or anxiety, his audience would readily following his reasoning that therefore more than 50% of those on disability are taking advantage of the system to receiving benefits when they can obviously work. We all deal with anxiety and back-pain so they should be able to as well. Of course, this does not recognize that the reality of debilitating anxiety disorders or crippling chronic back injuries. The truth doesn't matter here, though. Mr Paul made statements that fit comfortably with the viewpoints of his listeners and lead them to a conclusion they would swallow without question despite it being horrendously misleading. Further, Mr Paul is a intelligent aware, individual who would know exactly how his audience would interpret these statements. This is not hyperbole. It is a politician manipulating the public by throwing red meat to their the biases of the group who's support he is courting against those receiving public aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 yeah, it's outrageous. as though failed back syndrome or herniated discs or central canal stenosis is comparable to a bit of soreness in the morning from degenerative disc disease. FFS. what a worthless waste of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Not to mention it is fucking hard to get approved for social security disability, over fifty percent of applications are rejected. So it is an intensely scrutinized process.Speaking of Paul, liberals should be aware of his terrifying philosophy on the supreme court, namely that it should be extremely activist but only in a pro corporate direction, and should be extraordinarily zealous striking down any law protecting the rights of citizens that businesses might object to.the preceding sentence may have contained some very mild hyperbole of the rand Paul variety, btw.http://www.vox.com/2015/1/17/7628543/rand-paul-lochnerIn other words his supreme court philosophy is for the court to reinstate the lochner reign of terror era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Do you need the approval of, say, Taylor Swift to use footage and pictures of her in political content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 This is from the last thread, regarding Rand Paul holding positions that would keep him from getting the nomination.Is it possible that Rand Paul could change that thinking? In other words, can he make the case that there can be good ideas that both Republicans and Democrats agree on and it would be irresponsible not to pursue them and that it doesn't make him any less of a Republican? Or have the yahoos so taken over the party that anyone not toeing the party line gets excommunicated?It MAY be possible for a Republican to do that. I submit that that Republican (and he is a Republican) is not Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 yeah, it's outrageous. as though failed back syndrome or herniated discs or central canal stenosis is comparable to a bit of soreness in the morning from degenerative disc disease. FFS. what a worthless waste of space. Ooh, ooh, ooh! I have those 3 I highlighted and I also have dealt with anxiety! I'm gaming the system and I have my welfare Cadillac in the garage of my welfare mansion!!! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Isn't Rand Paul a doctor? If so he should know that there is a spectrum of severity of various conditions. I know it's just political, but it's irresponsible and knowing he's a doctor people may be more inclined to believe his nonsense. It's not easy to be approved for disability, the approval rate, through all levels of the process, including going before a judge is about 40%, most people give up and never go before a judge after being denied. It's also worth pointing out that the GAO says the fraud rate is less than 1%. I don't know why someone who isn't disabled would attempt to game the system on disability rather than working. full time minimum wage is higher than the average disability payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Do you need the approval of, say, Taylor Swift to use footage and pictures of her in political content? Interesting question. I suspect we may find out in short order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I dont know if I completely disagree with Rand Paul's assertion. I've seen enough anecdotal evidence of people gaming the system - the deadbeat brother-in-law doctor shopping for back surgery until he finally gets approved for disability, the lady in front of me at the grocery store buying M&M's and Skittles with the EBT card and hopping into her mercedes, the period when I worked at a bank and dealt with a lady coming in to cash a 15k check using her welfare card as ID... Anecdotes are fine but even the SS Stats show an uptick on the rolls over the last 15 years 5 million to 8 million (and keep in mind this only focuses on the primary applicant, not familiy members who also collect if the primary applicant is approved. I would also not be too quick to assert that it is tough to get on the rolls. The rejection rate is well over 50% but keep in mind that you can apply multiple times. I know people that have applied multiple times and finally got a lawyer that knew the system and the dials to turn in order to get on. I understand that it is easy to just dismiss Rand Paul's assertion based on the theory that Republicans look down on poor people as a default reaction but it is a dangerous position. There is a culture of reliance on government that can pass from generation to generation. I've seen it with my own extended familiy and breeds nothing but pain and struggle. You may not like the messenger but the point is a valid one that should be debated and not dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 No, see, that's exactly the issue. The point is not a valid one. It should be dismissed for the non data driven scare tactic it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 No, see, that's exactly the issue. The point is not a valid one. It should be dismissed for the non data driven scare tactic it is. So whats a more reasonable assessment? Lets be a little more realistic that Rand's who was probably speaking off the cuff. If you took 25% of the people with just the subset of mood disorder under mental issues and 25% of the back injury folks as gaming the system you would have over a million people of the 10 million people on disability: Mood Disorders - 14.9% (25% = about 375,000) Musculoskeletal system and connective tissue - 30.5% (25% = 750,000) I think that a pretty conservative estimate but tough to argue. Even if 10% of this population is gaming the system its a big issue and a fair point to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Have you ever applied for disability zelticgar? Do you have any idea what the process is like? What information is required, both from the applicant and medical records? From everything you've been saying here, all your anecdotes about poor people gaming the system, I'd guess that your own attitudes about this matter more than what numbers and the research actually says about the issue. Here's a hint it doesn't support your position, even in the milder form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 For all the Paulites want to paint Paul as some kind of smart, independent, high-integrity free-thinker, he's just another shitheel Republican blaming America's problems on the poor. Fuck him and his racist kook dad, and fuck their apologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Speaking of Paul, liberals should be aware of his terrifying philosophy on the supreme court, namely that it should be extremely activist but only in a pro corporate direction, and should be extraordinarily zealous striking down any law protecting the rights of citizens that businesses might object to.the preceding sentence may have contained some very mild hyperbole of the rand Paul variety, btw.http://www.vox.com/2015/1/17/7628543/rand-paul-lochnerIn other words his supreme court philosophy is for the court to reinstate the lochner reign of terror era. Yes, he believes the Supreme Court should aggressively protect individual rights. What a monster. I realize that sticking it to the rich is the Left's sole reason for existence, but there are other issues that Paul was referencing: "He pointed to a variety of Supreme Court cases where government actions were on trial, from Progressive era economic regulations to state bans on birth control to the 2012 showdown over Obamacare, and pronounced himself in favor of judicial activism against those laws in every instance"Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/rand-paul-im-a-judicial-activist-2/#QTeIpy9huMPVyRqT.99 "But Mr. Paul said that the court has been a vehicle for good, and that has been particularly true when it comes to racial equality, with key Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down separate-but-equal schooling."Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/rand-paul-rethink-opposition-judicial-activism/#ixzz3P9N1d100 He also declared “absolute states’ rights is not a conservative position.”...Furthermore, he insisted, the majority is not always right. And states’ rights do not always trump constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Paul used the example of Jim Crow racial discrimination laws to illustrate both points." Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/rand-paul-im-a-judicial-activist/#94Jpe3aWPWj4oVT3.99 And before you come up with some lame, snarky bullshit about the CRA, Rand has always opposed state-enforced segregation/discrimination, which were a huge part of Jim Crow. But lockesnow's thing on the Supreme Court is the bigger deal. The Pauls are crazy. Yes, they might say things that people like such as that the federal government shouldn't jail people for pot. But they aren't saying that because they give a shit about the people that are being jailed. They just have an infantile hate of Fed anything, and as all higher primates can learn, they also realized that they could get applause from some of their political opponents by expression this view which provides them a dopamine hit along with the learning-based understanding that they might be furthering their own cause (the only cause that matters) in the process. ^Ladies and gents, this is called going off the deep end. Also: "Paul opened his speech by polling how many members of the audience favored judicial activism, and not a single person raised a hand." What a disgusting display of pandering to the audience!! :lol: For all the Paulites want to paint Paul as some kind of smart, independent, high-integrity free-thinker, he's just another shitheel Republican blaming America's problems on the poor. Fuck him and his racist kook dad, and fuck their apologists. Always elevating the discourse... Not only that, I think that one could argue that he (they, the Pauls) are the most racist Republicans. I'm not aware of any other GOP candidates who are within a generation of a neo-confederate newsletter (though I wouldn't be shocked if another emerged) and themselves went to an all-black college to white-splain stuff in a move that was so transparently self-serving. Here's how I think the thought process went in Rand's head: 1 - I want to and deserve to be President because I'm me 2 - I hear that my party has a problem with minority voters and that we cannot win without that changing, therefore I am a genius for realizing that we have to appeal to minority voters if I'm to be given my right as President 3 - Go to minority college and explain why I'm awesome and assume the people there are stupid and somehow expect it to work in my favor because i'm me and get brownie points or something 4 - Profit on debate circuit What could he possibly do to convince you? Sponsor legislation on these issues, both local and federal? Check. Meet with black leaders and activists? Check. Make bold statements about racism, police, and the court system? Check. Lend support to Obama policies that address these issues? Check. The Pauls, especially Ron, have a problem of associating with some kooky, unsavory individuals in the past because libertarianism used to be much more fringe than it is now and they were in no position to be picky. There is no evidence that they are personally racist. Zilch. Nada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Well, other than writing racist things in a racist magazine that was written by Ron Paul, no. He'd never do anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.