Whos the real taker?

Who's the real taker?


  • Total voters
    14
Again, people who rely on 'fweeings' to make decisions are stupid, and the results of their decisions show this.
You mean "Rely completely" on feelings. Most of us would not want to admit how much of our judgments and decisions are based upon feelings and not facts and data. It's like the one dimensional main character in the book "Being There". A person who makes judgements and decisions (particularly about people) who base them solely on feelings or solely on facts and data generally speaking have poor judgement.

I mean if I tried to make decisions about what is in my wifes best interest based solely on facts and data I wouldn't be married for long.
 
Nope, there are actual studies that show people who have had brain damage and have lost their emotions are unable to make decisions. They can solve math problems, but decision making is difficult.

Damasio is the name of the neurologist that did the research, educate yourself!

Nope, you can't even recall correctly how you phrased it! You said, " people who rely on feeling to make decisions are stupid" and that isn't the case.
Hey, if you want to make all of your decisions based on 'feelings', go for it. Just don't complain when you discover common sense would have been a much better route to take.
 
Hey, if you want to make all of your decisions based on 'feelings', go for it. Just don't complain when you discover common sense would have been a much better route to take.
Common sense? What is that? Next to "Holy War" it's probably the worlds greatest oxymoron. I mean, there's nothing common about sense! LOL

Oh....btw....what is a "sense"? Aren't "feelings" a sense?
 
That isn't what I wrote, is it? I said people who follow fweeings instead of their common sense and logic, are stupid.

Enough with the strawdawgs.

In the political realm, those who make decisions out of compassion and a duty to those they govern are by no means stupid. It's you folks we need to watch out for.

Stalin's additions to Marxism were entirely(or in part, depending upon how you think about it) based on logic, but where did they get us?
tumblr_mdyncnQkp41qzdutv.gif
 
Last edited:
People with out Feelings are not people. Their monsters capable of horrific acts.

And hippies who are to stupid to know what a race is, are more apt to be a drain on society and should be isolated from the others by being made to live in a basement.
Especially when the other hippies, at the hippie compound, don't want anything to do with him any longer.
 
I was just wondering where this newest bumper sticker 'taker/maker' bullshit came from. All the wingnuts here have been using it and I was just wondering. So I ran into this and it explained* it all to me. Maybe some of you realized that this is what 'taker/maker' was all about but I just knew it was propaganda class-war right wing noise but it's a bit deeper than that.


The "maker/taker" story is exactly the "47 percent" story that Mitt Romney told at that fund-raiser. It's the idea that the Democrats' core constituency is a bunch of lazy and/or untalented "takers" who want to use the government to steal from the hard-working "makers". Here's The Corner's David French summing up the idea:

To tens of millions of American voters, a conservative message of self-reliance and individual economic freedom is, quite frankly, terrifying.
First, each of Obama’s core constituencies (single women, African-Americans, and Latinos) is seriously — and disproportionately — economically disadvantaged compared to the classic paradigm of the white, college-educated Republican voter. The rates of poverty and near-poverty among these groups are much greater...

As you can see, the "maker/taker" narrative has a strong ethnic angle; the "takers" are supposed to be mostly minorities and single women. White men and their wives produce things; blacks, Hispanics, and (sluts) single women live on the dole. Naturally, this ethnic angle plays well with the conservative "base", i.e. Southern and exurban working-class whites for whom politics is ethnic and tribal. Here's Fox News' Bill O'Reilly reinforcing that racial version of the narrative:

"The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?"

So, here's the problem: The narrative is wrong. Completely, utterly, wrong. The Democrats' appeal is not based on people "wanting stuff". And how do I know this? I know it because Asian-Americans voted for Obama by a 3-to-1 margin. Check this out:

Exit polls show that 73% of Asian Americans backed Obama, an 11-point increase since 2008. Asian Americans came out in such force for Obama that they topped Latinos as his second-most supportive ethnic group, behind African Americans...

While Asians accounted for just 3% of the electorate – up from 2% in 2008 – their overwhelming support made them a key component of the Obama coalition, especially in swing states like Virginia, Florida and Colorado.

And their numbers are increasing rapidly. They were the fastest-growing ethnic group from 2000 to 2010...
73% [of Asian-American voters] supported Democrats in congressional races.

So, for those of you who don't know this, Asian-Americans make more money than white Americans. Thus, they pay more income tax. And Asians are half as likely as the average American to be on welfare...

...If they're not "takers", why did Asian-Americans break so strongly for Obama? The answer is pretty clear:

Conservative ethnic identity politics. The American conservative movement has made it abundantly clear that it sees America as a "white people country", and views Asians - like blacks and Hispanics - as guests (at best) or interlopers (at worst). The blood-and-soil white ethnocentrism of the conservative movement makes Asians feel like permanent foreigners in their own country, and they don't like feeling like that. Who would?

So if conservative intellectuals really want to turn their movement away from the self-destructive path that they're on, they need to face up to one overwhelmingly important piece of reality: White (Christian) ethnocentrism is turning everyone else against them. Getting rid of that ethnocentrism will take more than putting some Hispanics, or some Asians, or some Jews on the speaker's podium. It will take more than pretending to vote for - or even actually voting for! - Herman Cain or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal.

What will it mean? It will mean no longer talking about a "culture war". It will mean no longer talking about the "real America". It will mean rejecting race-baiters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart - not grudgingly, but wholeheartedly. It will mean rejecting nativist groups like the Minutemen. It will mean admitting that the Civil War was all about slavery, and that the Confederacy were the bad guys. It will mean disavowing the whole stupid narrative that blacks and Hispanics are a bunch of lazy "takers".

In other words, it will mean doing a lot more than the conservative movement is currently prepared to do. But guys, at least face up to reality. At least open your eyes and see what the rest of America really thinks about you. The Asian-American vote is an unmistakable sign that your master narrative is wrong.

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/asian-americans-destroy-makertaker.html

*of course I know this is an opinion piece
 
And hippies who are to stupid to know what a race is, are more apt to be a drain on society and should be isolated from the others by being made to live in a basement.
Especially when the other hippies, at the hippie compound, don't want anything to do with him any longer.
The contradiction here is that I'm an old hippie, I work around 50 to 60 hours a week, make a comfortable income, have a nice home, several cars, a gorgeous wife and...oh yea....I'm way smarter than you too. :p
 
I was just wondering where this newest bumper sticker 'taker/maker' bullshit came from. All the wingnuts here have been using it and I was just wondering. So I ran into this and it explained* it all to me. Maybe some of you realized that this is what 'taker/maker' was all about but I just knew it was propaganda class-war right wing noise but it's a bit deeper than that.


The "maker/taker" story is exactly the "47 percent" story that Mitt Romney told at that fund-raiser. It's the idea that the Democrats' core constituency is a bunch of lazy and/or untalented "takers" who want to use the government to steal from the hard-working "makers". Here's The Corner's David French summing up the idea:

To tens of millions of American voters, a conservative message of self-reliance and individual economic freedom is, quite frankly, terrifying.
First, each of Obama’s core constituencies (single women, African-Americans, and Latinos) is seriously — and disproportionately — economically disadvantaged compared to the classic paradigm of the white, college-educated Republican voter. The rates of poverty and near-poverty among these groups are much greater...

As you can see, the "maker/taker" narrative has a strong ethnic angle; the "takers" are supposed to be mostly minorities and single women. White men and their wives produce things; blacks, Hispanics, and (sluts) single women live on the dole. Naturally, this ethnic angle plays well with the conservative "base", i.e. Southern and exurban working-class whites for whom politics is ethnic and tribal. Here's Fox News' Bill O'Reilly reinforcing that racial version of the narrative:

"The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?"

So, here's the problem: The narrative is wrong. Completely, utterly, wrong. The Democrats' appeal is not based on people "wanting stuff". And how do I know this? I know it because Asian-Americans voted for Obama by a 3-to-1 margin. Check this out:

Exit polls show that 73% of Asian Americans backed Obama, an 11-point increase since 2008. Asian Americans came out in such force for Obama that they topped Latinos as his second-most supportive ethnic group, behind African Americans...

While Asians accounted for just 3% of the electorate – up from 2% in 2008 – their overwhelming support made them a key component of the Obama coalition, especially in swing states like Virginia, Florida and Colorado.

And their numbers are increasing rapidly. They were the fastest-growing ethnic group from 2000 to 2010...
73% [of Asian-American voters] supported Democrats in congressional races.

So, for those of you who don't know this, Asian-Americans make more money than white Americans. Thus, they pay more income tax. And Asians are half as likely as the average American to be on welfare...

...If they're not "takers", why did Asian-Americans break so strongly for Obama? The answer is pretty clear:

Conservative ethnic identity politics. The American conservative movement has made it abundantly clear that it sees America as a "white people country", and views Asians - like blacks and Hispanics - as guests (at best) or interlopers (at worst). The blood-and-soil white ethnocentrism of the conservative movement makes Asians feel like permanent foreigners in their own country, and they don't like feeling like that. Who would?

So if conservative intellectuals really want to turn their movement away from the self-destructive path that they're on, they need to face up to one overwhelmingly important piece of reality: White (Christian) ethnocentrism is turning everyone else against them. Getting rid of that ethnocentrism will take more than putting some Hispanics, or some Asians, or some Jews on the speaker's podium. It will take more than pretending to vote for - or even actually voting for! - Herman Cain or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal.

What will it mean? It will mean no longer talking about a "culture war". It will mean no longer talking about the "real America". It will mean rejecting race-baiters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart - not grudgingly, but wholeheartedly. It will mean rejecting nativist groups like the Minutemen. It will mean admitting that the Civil War was all about slavery, and that the Confederacy were the bad guys. It will mean disavowing the whole stupid narrative that blacks and Hispanics are a bunch of lazy "takers".

In other words, it will mean doing a lot more than the conservative movement is currently prepared to do. But guys, at least face up to reality. At least open your eyes and see what the rest of America really thinks about you. The Asian-American vote is an unmistakable sign that your master narrative is wrong.

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/asian-americans-destroy-makertaker.html

*of course I know this is an opinion piece
What's funny......and I've all ready done this to Grind. Is if someone starts talking the "taker/maker" stuff...just ask them. "So how much and what do you make besides hot air?"
 
The contradiction here is that I'm an old hippie, I work around 50 to 60 hours a week, make a comfortable income, have a nice home, several cars, a gorgeous wife and...oh yea....I'm way smarter than you too. :p

Did I say or suggest that you fit the description that I posted?
The correct answer is - NO.
But for some reason, unknown to me, you thought it applied to you.
I do wonder why you thought that? :palm:
 
More then likely; it's broke ass hippies, who haven't done a damn thing with their lives and now expect to be taken care of.

It's the hippie who fought to keep civilization's feet on the ground.

If the Second World War generation was the greatest generation then the 60's generation was the second greatest. Standing up against their government in a time of war (or police action or needless slaughter) and declaring, "Hell no! We won't go!" the 60's generation, the Freedom Generation opened people's eyes. (Or maybe it was the mushrooms.) :)

The Freedom Generation that brought women into the "club". That, alone, changed our society. It also made it a hell of a lot easier to get a date. :)

They may be wearing ties to work but the hippies are still around. White shirts instead of purple and orange but they're still here and they're changing things like Obama changed medical care. The "hippie-ness" was transferred through genes. Social policies are no longer just a suggestion. They are being put in place. Unemployment extension being another example. Working on some type of gun regulation because if something doesn't work it needs to be changed.

The hippies put "civil" in civilization. :good4u:
 
It's the hippie who fought to keep civilization's feet on the ground.

If the Second World War generation was the greatest generation then the 60's generation was the second greatest. Standing up against their government in a time of war (or police action or needless slaughter) and declaring, "Hell no! We won't go!" the 60's generation, the Freedom Generation opened people's eyes. (Or maybe it was the mushrooms.) :)

The Freedom Generation that brought women into the "club". That, alone, changed our society. It also made it a hell of a lot easier to get a date. :)

They may be wearing ties to work but the hippies are still around. White shirts instead of purple and orange but they're still here and they're changing things like Obama changed medical care. The "hippie-ness" was transferred through genes. Social policies are no longer just a suggestion. They are being put in place. Unemployment extension being another example. Working on some type of gun regulation because if something doesn't work it needs to be changed.

The hippies put "civil" in civilization. :good4u:
I think we invented beer too....dunno....some of those years are still kinda cloudy.
 
It's the hippie who fought to keep civilization's feet on the ground.

If the Second World War generation was the greatest generation then the 60's generation was the second greatest. Standing up against their government in a time of war (or police action or needless slaughter) and declaring, "Hell no! We won't go!" the 60's generation, the Freedom Generation opened people's eyes. (Or maybe it was the mushrooms.) :)

The Freedom Generation that brought women into the "club". That, alone, changed our society. It also made it a hell of a lot easier to get a date. :)

They may be wearing ties to work but the hippies are still around. White shirts instead of purple and orange but they're still here and they're changing things like Obama changed medical care. The "hippie-ness" was transferred through genes. Social policies are no longer just a suggestion. They are being put in place. Unemployment extension being another example. Working on some type of gun regulation because if something doesn't work it needs to be changed.

The hippies put "civil" in civilization. :good4u:

And once again; your response has nothing to do with what was being addressed in my post.
 
As you can see, the "maker/taker" narrative has a strong ethnic angle; the "takers" are supposed to be mostly minorities and single women. White men and their wives produce things; blacks, Hispanics, and (sluts) single women live on the dole.

Says who? That's your own theory. My definition of a taker is meant quite literally, it is anyone that takes. If you want to take more money via taxes, you are a taker. If you are a gun grabber, you are a taker. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Plenty of white liberals are takers as well. It's a matter of philosophy.


...If they're not "takers", why did Asian-Americans break so strongly for Obama? The answer is pretty clear:

No, the answer is not pretty clear. Why do plenty of white people vote for obama as well? Maybe they wish not to take for themselves but instead take on behalf of others. You don't have to be completely full of self-interest to be a taker, you can fully wish to take money and give it to others (instead of yourself) and still be a taker.

Secondly, you assume the only reason one would vote for obama are fiscal reasons. There are plenty of social issues you are completely negating as far as the decision process to vote is concerned, and these issues might not even involve taking (immigration, gay marriage, drug war, lack of religiosity, etc)

The Asian-American vote is an unmistakable sign that your master narrative is wrong.

your entire premise is false. I just proved you are full of shit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top