T1B

Posted: **Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:25 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)

You forgot to add New York City and probably San Francisco.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:11 am**

mvscal wrote:Would you prefer a refrigerator box in a piss stinking alley?

No, if I had to make the choice, I would prefer an appartment in the burbs to owning a house next door to a crack house. That's where houses poor people can afford are. Either that or so far out of the city center that there are no jobs.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:33 am**

BSmack wrote:...there are no jobs.

Cheer up. I hear Haliburton is hiring.

BYOBA*

* bring your own body armour

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:02 am**

There are always jobs, just maybe not where you want them to be. Tell me about it. We are moving over Thanksgiving weekend because I have a great opportunity in OKC that just didn't exist here. My hubbie found the same thing...shakey contract work here, solid job there. We hate to leave and uproot our kid, but we have to look out for our future, even as middle class professionals.

The Oklahoma City paper did some stories about several families from New Orleans that were very poor families that found places in Oklahoma and in a couple of other affordable states. When they landed in those places, they found that there were jobs available, homes they could afford, and schools for their kids that were all a better situation than the one they had to leave.

There are a lot of places across what many folks think is "fly-over country" that have affordable housing, jobs for people without higher education, and decent public school opportunities. These are places from which people with greater opportunities flee, but are also places where people with a high school education and a work ethic can make their own way and afford a nice way of life.

The thing that pisses me off about the whole poverty debate is that people seem like they are arguing that everyone should have the same aspect of life in every city and every place. That is just not going to happen.

It's all relative. If we took our income to upper Manhattan...we live on the street. If we took our income to some small town in Mississippi, we buy the mansion that the town founder built. In any midwestern city, we can get a great house close to the city center. In many of those cities, and I'm talking what...at least as large as St. Louis, Dallas, Denver, Albequerque, Omaha...there are tons of neighborhoods that are affordable to folks making 40k that are not crime ridden. They may not be your local garden tour hoods, but they are safe and have decent public schools.

Personally, I think people get in debt and get in a rut and just can't imagine moving or can't afford to move to a better place.

Then again, there are so many no-profits that help folks with all this, that I think that if people stay in a horrible situation, that is sometimes a choice. If life sucks where you are and you are too poor to make a living...get on a fucking bus and get out of there, or call one of the many organizations that help people get to areas where there are jobs and homes.

People who bitch about no opportunity in this country remind me of this:

GREEN DAY LYRICS

"Basket Case"

Do you have the time
to listen to me whine
About nothing and everything
all at once

Our country has it's problems for sure, but for a country that has opportunity for those that want to go out of their neighborhood and find it instead of asking for it to be brought to them...I'll put the good ole USA against any of them. The kicker is that it ain't gonna come knocking on your door.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:11 am**

Drive-by RACK for Ang

Btw,

Ang wrote:Personally, I think people get in debt and get in a rut and just can't imagine moving or can't afford to move to a better place.

You're obviously an Oklahoma native. :wink:

Carry on ...

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:46 pm**

Ang wrote:Our country has it's problems for sure, but for a country that has opportunity for those that want to go out of their neighborhood and find it instead of asking for it to be brought to them...I'll put the good ole USA against any of them. The kicker is that it ain't gonna come knocking on your door.

Ang,

You get any more strident and Lee Greenwood is going to sue you for copyright infringement.

There is a difference between understanding what one needs to do in this world and understanding how this economy is making it more difficult for the middle class to survive?

Comprende?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:48 pm**

Yeah, this economy sure is making it difficult for the middle class...

Hey, asshole, only those who have been convinced by the Democrats that they cannot make their lives better, are buying this class warfare nonsense.

Go sell this to the idiots at Democratic Underground.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:52 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Yeah, this economy sure is making it difficult for the middle class...

Hey, asshole, only those who have been convinced by the Democrats that they cannot make their lives better, are buying this class warfare nonsense.

Go sell this to the idiots at Democratic Underground.

Dipshit doesn't understand the difference between impossible and harder to do. How shocking.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:53 pm**

Hey, B, I know...why don't you post Kerry's version of the "misery index?" Or perhaps you could post the traditional version of the "misery index."

Or, do you prefer to run the argument that the middle class is shrinking? That's a good argument, btw. The middle is shrinking. But lets see if you tell us where they all went...

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:54 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Yeah, this economy sure is making it difficult for the middle class...

Hey, asshole, only those who have been convinced by the Democrats that they cannot make their lives better, are buying this class warfare nonsense.

Go sell this to the idiots at Democratic Underground.
Dipshit doesn't understand the difference between impossible and harder to do. How shocking.

This sidestep move must be an instinctual thing for you.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:08 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Hey, B, I know...why don't you post Kerry's version of the "misery index?" Or perhaps you could post the traditional version of the "misery index."

Or, do you prefer to run the argument that the middle class is shrinking? That's a good argument, btw. The middle is shrinking. But lets see if you tell us where they all went...

That's easy.

80% of the country has a HOUSEHOLD income of 52K or less.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:14 pm**

Bwaahahahahaaaaaa...

Sidesteppin is definitely your forte, bitch.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:18 pm**

BSmack wrote:

Doesn't do much to support your contention that the military is a dumping ground for the poor does it, dipshit?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:23 pm**

Cuda wrote:
BSmack wrote:

Doesn't do much to support your contention that the military is a dumping ground for the poor does it, dipshit?

More than 60% of recruits comming from households below the average household income tells me that plenty of poor and lower middle class kids are taking their chances in Fallujah.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:38 pm**

Monica, do you not know the difference between the terms "Median" and "Average?

Or do you just think everybody else is as fucking stupid as you are?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:56 pm**

Yet another sidestep from B.

More than 60% of recruits comming from households below the average household income tells me that plenty of poor and lower middle class kids are taking their chances in Fallujah.

Ahhhh, but, B, that is not the issue. The left is not arguing that there are plenty of poor people fighting the war on terror.

Rather, their argument is that the poor is disproportionately shouldering the burden of the war on terror.

Why do you choose to ignore your party's argument when the facts undermine that argument??

Because that's the people do when their arguments are bunk.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:15 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Rather, their argument is that the poor is disproportionately shouldering the burden of the war on terror.

The poor is disproportionately shouldering the burden?

Got English?

For the last time, your graph is bullshit. Taking median incomes of zip codes is nonsensical. If you take the median income of my hometown, you would conclude that it is a upper middle class community. However, there are poor people who live in my hometown. Who do you think is more likely to enlist?

Show me data that shows rich kids are actualy ENLISTING and not data the purports rich kids are enlisting because their poorer neighbors have.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:03 pm**

The poor is disproportionately shouldering the burden?

Got English?

Yeah, I got English...what are you struggling with?

For the last time, your graph is bullshit. Taking median incomes of zip codes is nonsensical.

It's nonsensical. It's using the data that is available. You see, dimwit, you cannot always get flawless information. That's why researchers explain their methodology, so that those who review their work recognize the limitations of the data. I know you won't accept that, but that more explains your ignorance than it undermines the conclusions being drawn from this data.

If you take the median income of my hometown, you would conclude that it is a upper middle class community. However, there are poor people who live in my hometown. Who do you think is more likely to enlist?

Well, based on this data...sound that enlistment will be similar across the income range.

Why don't you actually try presenting data to support your assertion?

Or do you just sit back with your empty class warfare shots and then only criticize efforts to actually findout if your empty assertions warrant consideration?

Show me data that shows rich kids are actualy ENLISTING and not data the purports rich kids are enlisting because their poorer neighbors have.

Why don't you people actually support your own assertions?

The data is presented to confront your argument. It would be used to confront your data...if you had any.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:07 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:I submitted data that does not support my conclusions and now expect someone else to do my research.

Got it.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:11 pm**

You got that sidestep thing down.

You people just drop unsubstantiated assertions and when those are confronted with data you merely respond that the data is bad.

Yet, at no point do you actually put forth data of your own.

Yeah, that explains a lot about you.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:13 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:You got that sidestep thing down. You people just drop unsubstantiated assertions and when those are confronted with data you merely respond that the data is bad. Yet, at no point do you actually put forth data of your own. Yeah, that explains a lot about you.

You were the one that started this thread with the contention that the poor do not bear a disproportionate share of the burden. That was all you, not me, not Bushice, not Marty or Phibes. It was ALL YOU.

Then you presented data that does not support said conclusion.

Now you want to spin this so that others have to do what you should have done before hitting the fucking submitt button TO BEGIN WITH?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:24 pm**

Dr.Detroit
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Total posts: 6648
[5.23% of total / 22.23 posts per day]
Find all posts by DrDetroit

Holy shit, today you are going way over the limit. I think you have 37 posts in TODAY. You are 15 over your average and I haven't even made my bologna sandwich for lunch.

If you're posting from work, your boss and his company is getting fucking hosed by your ass. Have you ever crested 100 posts in one day? You're like the Irie EverReady Meth battery.

Have you ever walked into your lunch room and suddenly see everyone stand and leave? Did they all finish at the same time, you thought?

You're at the company picnic and managed to grab the best picnic table by the bratwurst station. Did it ever cross your mind why nobody else joined your table?

Put a fork in it.

Rip City

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:33 pm**

Bologna sammich? Damn, that sounds pretty good just about now, Luther.
I was thinking along the lines of some tuna, but I'd have to mix it up with mayo first, and I don't have any bbq chips or Nestle's Quick to go with it.

On the other hand, I don't have any bologna either, so it looks like either ham and cheese today, leftover steak from last night or a trip to the store for Mikey.

So many decisions.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:42 pm**

Dr D has a heaping plate of fresh Bullshit ready. Help yourself. :)

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:54 pm**

Luther wrote:I really cannot bring myself to ignore DrDetroit, so I'm gonna wet myself every time he posts.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:57 pm**

BSmack wrote:You were the one that started this thread with the contention that the poor do not bear a disproportionate share of the burden. That was all you, not me, not Bushice, not Marty or Phibes. It was ALL YOU.

Bwaahahahahaaaaaaa....now you're going to lie about this thread???

I started this thread with the following comment:
But haven't we been told by the Democrats that the poor are unfairly overrepresented in this war on terrorism?

Then you presented data that does not support said conclusion.

Of course because I wasn't putting forth the argument that the poor are overrepresented in fighting the war on terror.

This is page 5...wtf did you miss?

Now you want to spin this so that others have to do what you should have done before hitting the fucking submitt button TO BEGIN WITH?

I was addressing a Democratic assertion. What did you not get about that?

Exactly.

You were just exposed and now you want to lie about what this thread is about.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:01 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:I started this thread with the following comment:
But haven't we been told by the Democrats that the poor are unfairly overrepresented in this war on terrorism?

Where? Present your data. When did Democrats say this? What data were they refering to? In what context was it said?

Sucks to have your own tactics fly back in your face.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:03 pm**

Believe the Heupel wrote:You know, I'm just chuckling here about a study that purports to prove something by showing that a large proportion of the armed forces come from households with incomes between $30k-$300k. No shit? I'll bet most of 'em are between 5'2"-6'7" as well. Further, I'd be willing to bet that most of them are from the contiguous United States.

RACK BTH....LOL!!!

Normal curves are always confusing, eh?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:03 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
Luther wrote:I really cannot bring myself to ignore DrDetroit, so I'm gonna wet myself every time he posts.

You have around 46 posts today. Luther has 2, only one of which was directed at you. Why must you lie?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:03 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:I started this thread with the following comment:
But haven't we been told by the Democrats that the poor are unfairly overrepresented in this war on terrorism?
Where? Present your data. When did Democrats say this? What data were they refering to? In what context was it said?

Sucks to have your own tactics fly back in your face.

Uh, dumbshit....the article I posted in the very first post in this thread....figure it out, tard.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:11 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:I started this thread with the following comment:
But haven't we been told by the Democrats that the poor are unfairly overrepresented in this war on terrorism?
Where? Present your data. When did Democrats say this? What data were they refering to? In what context was it said?

Sucks to have your own tactics fly back in your face.
Uh, dumbshit....the article I posted in the very first post in this thread....figure it out, tard.

Got it all figured out. You're taking a contention made by Charles Rangel nearly 3 years ago, implying that it represents ALL Democrats and attempting to refute it with data that does not support your conclusions.

In other words, a typical example of one of your bullshit threads.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:20 pm**

JHawkBCD wrote:Maybe they should start running the West Coast Offense.

Screw you!

Sincerely,

Husker Fan.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:32 pm**

BSmack wrote:Got it all figured out. You're taking a contention made by Charles Rangel nearly 3 years ago, implying that it represents ALL Democrats and attempting to refute it with data that does not support your conclusions.

In other words, a typical example of one of your bullshit threads.

1) Don't pretend that many congressional Democrats and black leaders did not jump on that wagon.

2) The data, despite it acknowledged limitations, does suggest that the poor are not overrepresented in the military before and after 9/11.

B, you've just demonstrated that you knowing of social research. And I can't wait for the next time that you use a proxy measure to prove one of your points because you either refuse toprovide direct data that might be available or because you simply cannot find it.

This is why researchers are obligated to present their methodology for scrutiny. Heritage did not hide what they did. IMO, given the data, this suggests that the Democrats making the argument that Rangle burst on to the scene with are just wrong.

Now, if you believe otherwise, you have had several opportunities to provide data that would provide a better measure. But you haven't. You have chosen not to not because the data is unavailable (you don't know that anyway), but because you are a bitch that relies on empty assertions, like Rangle's.

Rangle's comments were discussed in the Spin Forum...did you or did you not agree with him on this point? Or am I confusing this your comments on the Democrats proposal for reinstituting the draft?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:49 pm**

Hey fucknuts, I thought I told you to go wait for me in the Spin Zone.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:59 pm**

Whoa! I guess I better go. :roll: Nice melt!

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:09 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:1) Don't pretend that many congressional Democrats and black leaders did not jump on that wagon.

Ah, so now we go from "Democrats" implying that this contention was an offical position of the party to "many congressional Democrats".

Only took 5 pages for you to start backpeddaling.

2) The data, despite it acknowledged limitations, does suggest that the poor are not overrepresented in the military before and after 9/11.

Your data is so poor as to suggest nothing.

Rangle's comments were discussed in the Spin Forum...did you or did you not agree with him on this point? Or am I confusing this your comments on the Democrats proposal for reinstituting the draft?

I am inclined to agree with Rangle's point. When I see recruiters targeting shopping malls in poor neighborhoods and ignoring ones in rich neighborhoods, that tells me that THEIR data points towards targeting poor kids. But I am open to new data. Have you any?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:22 pm**

Ah, so now we go from "Democrats" implying that this contention was an offical position of the party to "many congressional Democrats".

Well, when Rangle made his statement a boatload of Dems joined in and no Dems publicly disputed his position. Howard Dean has echoed this sentiment.

So, yeah, by not repusiating it and by your national Chair repeating it, it is, in effect, a position of your party.

And don't pretend that you do not do the same thing with Republicans, B.

Your data is so poor as to suggest nothing.

LOL!!! If that data had supported Rangle's statement, you'd have been using it yourself to perpetuate your class warfare rhetoric.

I am inclined to agree with Rangle's point. When I see recruiters targeting shopping malls in poor neighborhoods and ignoring ones in rich neighborhoods, that tells me that THEIR data points towards targeting poor kids. But I am open to new data. Have you any?

You're not open to any such thing....just look at the progression of your argument in this thread. It wasn't until Mikey pointed out the obvious limitation of the dat did you start singing a different tune.

To date, neither Rangle nor Dean has provided anything, at all, to support this position that you are inclined to agree with.

I wonder why?

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:39 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:You're not open to any such thing....just look at the progression of your argument in this thread.

You mean the progression that started with me using your own stats to beat you over the head and ended with me stripping even that shred of dignity from you?

Got it.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:12 am**

No, you accepting the stats and quibbling on the margins to riding Mikey's coattails.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:35 am**

I'll buy that 40k is not poor in some areas. But 25k? If you got even 1 kid, it's pretty damn poor. And 60K in wny where you can buy a house for approx. nothing, may not be rich, but, it ain't hurting neither.

The bottom line is that the caliber of person attracted to the military now, knowing full well that they may see trouble, is higher than it is during peacetime, when lesser men might join. The fact that these better men tend to come from families that raised then decently and, surprise, surprise, are able to hold decent steady jobs, is of no surprise.

T1B

So the war on terror is being fought by the poor, eh?