Stay on welfare: it’s the liberal way
In this Slate article by Christopher Beam, written during the Brown/Coakley campaign, I took note of the following sentence [emphasis mine]:
Whatever the accuracy of Brown’s self-portrait””his mother was once on welfare, yet he owns five properties””Democrats are late in countering it.
In this phrase, Beam probably didn’t think he was revealing anything all that important about the liberal/left way of thinking. But I think he was, and it may go something like this: the expectation is that people on welfare are supposed to stay there (and their children and their children’s children), as permanent recipients of the state’s largesse. When they do so, it usually has the beneficial side effect of their continuing to vote to keep their friends the Democrats in power and handing out the goods.
Beam hasn’t quite figured out that Brown is a fifty-year-old man who has been on his own quite some time, plenty long enough to have acquired a law degree, a bit of money, and a few properties along with that truck. These two things—having a mother who was on welfare for a while, and becoming a success later in life—are not mutually exclusive, and so there’s no inherent contradiction there for Democrats to “counter.”
Just ask Barack Obama about the food stamps his mother received when he was a boy. I hear he did pretty well for himself afterward.
I think that’s correct for the most part. Ninety-nine percent of us would say, “Hey, good for him. From poor kid to lawyer to senator.”
But I think his intended audience, the Daily Kos Kids and the Huffington post readers (they like Slate), are supposed to look at that and say, “Hypocrite!”
They can be relied on for shallow, illogical Tu Quoque attacks. It wouldn’t matter if Brown had worked his way up and out. Or if Brown had never uttered a word about welfare one way or the other (I’m not aware of any but that’s not saying much). What matters is if you dangle these tidbits in front of them, they seize on them and yell names, like they’ve been trained to.
I may have told this story before, but it fits with the topic: When I was a just-out-of-college welfare caseworker in Philly, an older (late 30s) black colleage came over to me one day and, rather upset, said he had just done something that bothered him. When preparing cases for visitation he noted that for one recipient it was the 25th anniversary of her being on welfare (she was a young child when her parents applied). When Mr. X greeted his client that day, he greeted her with a congratulations and explained the anniversary to her. Naturally, he felt bad about embarrassing her, he was a real gentleman.
Anyway, a few weeks later, he came to me and reported that his client had called to say she had gotten a job and wouldn’t be needing any more checks. She said that until his comment, she had never thought about what she wanted for her life.
That was a long time ago, but I still feel the sadness I felt then. For 25 years, this woman felt that her destiny was sealed. A chance comment by a good man gave her control over her life. I wonder whether Dems have ever experienced what real empowerment is. Once it is recognized, people can do incredible things, even if they never acquire wealth. Of course, if all human acheivement is measured by snobby social markers, the human in that phrase goes unrecognized.
Slightly OT, but related: speaking of hypocrisy and liberalism, Obama supports abortion on demand, but would he even be here if it had existed in 1961? Shotgun weddings were the rule then, as Barack Obama Sr. found out firsthand.
Re welfare, lefties rhetorically defend it as a way for people to get back on their feet, but remarks such as those quoted reveal that they don’t actually expect it to work that way.
His mother was on welfare and he posed nude. These are only acceptable if he is black and gay.
Nolanimrod, not only that, his wife wore a bikini 25 years ago. Good God, man, have you no decency?
Hmmm. Not unlike, say, J.K. Rowling. Or–Whoopi Goldberg, for that matter.
The road to progressive socialism means we shouldn’t be allowed to own private property.
How dare Scott Brown own private property. Right? This is the new age of progressive Obama. Unless you are a hypocrite leftist, you are not allowed to own property.
John Kerry is allowed to own property.
Wealthy left-wing celebrities and politicians are allowed to own private property. The rest of us should be happy with government health care, government housing, and government food stamps.
That or once your on it you owe us forever and/or are a ‘hypocrite’ for not being a democrat.
It’s pretty simplistic thinking on several levels… including that most republicans are not against a safety net / welfare. They just want to watch it and fine tune it to keep people from… you guessed it… staying on it forever / for multi generations…
I actually read the whole article because the single sentence was too short for context and I have to say I think Neo misread his meaning. Not that that sentiment isn’t widespread in the Democratic Party. Plenty of them seem to think it’s admirable to support people with welfare to the end of time instead of encouraging and helping them to actually succeed on their own. But in this case I don’t think that’s what the writer was saying. Here is my take.
In the paragraph above he says Scott Brown has projected the image that he’s “the independent, hard-working, middle-class, truck-driving guy who also happens to be dashing and well-spoken.”
The writer’s response is “Whatever the accuracy of Brown’s self-portrait–his mother was once on welfare, yet he owns five properties–Democrats are late in countering it.”
What I think he meant was that although there is evidence to support this self-portrait of being an average Joe (his mother was once on welfare) there is also evidence that contradicts it (he owns five properties). In other words, the writer is saying that he’s not just a hard-working, middle-class, truck-driving guy because hard-working, middle-class, truck-driving guys don’t generally own five properties. I don’t think he’s making the comparison that some here seem to think he’s making between being on welfare and owning five properties. I think he’s making the comparison between claiming to be an average guy and owning five properties.
I think that “yet” is the key word and the source of confusion in that sentence. The yet is not a response to the history of welfare, it’s a response to the claim that he’s an average Joe. In other words, the writer’s meaning would have been clearer if he had written something like this: Whatever the accuracy of Brown’s self-portrait– it’s true his mother was once on welfare, but it’s also a fact that he currently owns five properties–Democrats are late in countering it.
As I said above, I think there’s plenty of evidence of Democrats trying to permanently infantilize welfare recipients and perpetuate their dependence, but I just don’t think this is one of those cases. I think it was just poor wording.
kcom: my point is that the way the writer juxtaposes the two facts indicates that in his mind there is an inherent contradiction there. It’s as though both can’t be true of the same person, or something is fishy.
In addition, the idea that owning five rather modest properties means one isn’t a regular guy is preposterous. Brown never suggested he was poverty-stricken at this point in life. And everyone is aware that his wife has a good job. I know people who are far from wealthy and own income-producing properties. It helps, but it doesn’t put you in Ted Kennedy or John Kerry territory.
And you know what? Some of those people I know who own rental properties drive trucks—because they do a lot of their own repair work on those properties, which are usually small houses divided into a couple of apartments. That’s the way it often is in New England.
Brown’s case of rising up from the level of poverty should be something we can be proud of. It shows that he is determined to succeed and that nothing even poverty can keep him from that. This is also true for Obama. But it remains a question whether Brown and Obama can help raise the economic conditions of the country.
kcom:
Being an “Average Joe” refers to mind-set and communication style (shooting straight), not net worth. Kerry is not such, for example; recall his failed attempt at it: “Can I get me a hunting license here?”
“Mother on welfare, yet he owns five properties..democrats are late on countering it.” What on earth is there to counter? I say God Bless America, it’s a wonderful and inspiring story for everybody, especially the kids whose folks are on welfare. I don’t know, it seems “journalism” doesn’t exist anymore. I think it’s because it’s so poorly paid. Everything is free now, and we get this kind of analysis. He was probably paid a hundred bucks for the whole article. If he stays in journalism he most certainly never will have five properties. Mr. Beam should probably find another line of work, he’s sounding very bitter.
Kerry is not such, for example; recall his failed attempt at it: “Can I get me a hunting license here?”
I was just going to bring up that exact example and I’ll make the same point I made above. Just because John Kerry tried to get him a huntin’ license, doesn’t mean that it was an accurate reflection of who he was. It was a clear case of posturing. The point that I think the writer was making, and I’m definitely not saying I’m agreeing with him, is that Scott Brown was posturing. That his truck driving was a cover for his actual non-regular Joe status. I actually disagree with that, or at least disagree that it has any particular importance, since his driving a truck was clearly an ongoing part of his life, unlike John Kerry’s sudden hankering to go huntin’. Scott Brown wasn’t drving a truck for show.
But the writer, I think was making that claim, or at least insinuating heavily that it was the case. However, I still think, Neo, although I certainly take your point, that the juxtaposition of the welfare mom next to the five properties was simply a case of poor sentence construction. I honestly don’t believe he meant it in that way. You said:
my point is that the way the writer juxtaposes the two facts indicates that in his mind there is an inherent contradiction there. It’s as though both can’t be true of the same person, or something is fishy.
It certainly can’t be true of the same person at the same time. People on welfare don’t own five properties usually. I think what he is saying is not that both can’t be true of the same person but rather, while Point 1 might have been true of him at one time in the distant past, Point 2 is now a much more accurate and pertinent description of him. He has a good income, owns properties, is a lawyer and is pushing this regular guy thing too far. That would be the writer’s claim, I think. Not that Brown is not allowed to have moved from Point 1 to Point 2, but rather that he can’t pretend to be at Point 1 when he’s really at Point 2. In other words, the writer is insinuating Brown is hiding his “fat cat” status (a favorite presidential word of the moment) behind a veneer of regular Joe-ness. I honestly think that was the point he was trying to make and his poor sentence construction, especially the ill-advised placement of the word “yet” made the sentence read wrong. I read it the way you read it at first, too, so I know exactly what you’re saying.
Again, I’m not saying I agree with his claim, I just think he was making a different point and a different comparison than the one you’re ascribing to him. Wrong also, but different.
I don’t know why this prompted me to write so much, because at this point it’s a moot point (Brown won!) but I was sort of fascinated with the distinction. In point of fact, I made my first ever political contribution when I sent Scott Brown a donation through the Internet during the money bomb on Monday. I’m glad my money didn’t go for nothing. We dodged a bullet (I hope) with his election.
Oh, and as to the property thing, I haven’t read any description of his “properties” save for the modest time share in the Caribbean. I took that claim with a grain of salt, regardless, since I know that’s exactly the sort of thing an opponent, especially a Democratic opponent, would want to emphasize in opposing him, whether it was an actual reflection of the facts or not. They tried to do the same thing to John McCain, if I recall.
“…the expectation is that people on welfare are supposed to stay there (and their children and their children’s children), as permanent recipients of the state’s largesse.” Neo
And who’s expectation would this be?
Neo goes on to say:
“When they do so, it usually has the beneficial side effect of their continuing to vote to keep their friends the Democrats in power and handing out the goods.”
So let me get this straight- the dems have created welfare so that children born into the welfare system will somehow be brainwashed into continuing to vote dem because they’re on the dole and have no desire to change their position in life?
Do I, troglaman, have that right?
troglamn – I think you have it right. The price to pay for getting off welfare is sometimes equivalent to jumping the Grand Canyon.
Though not exactly welfare, my father was told that his WWII disability payment of $50/mo would be taken away completely if he earned $1. That $49 in 1945 was the equivalent of jumping over the Grand Canyon.
My father, as many of his generation decided to jump. He figured if he could earn $51 he was well ahead of the game and he was right.
But now, a man or woman with a family has medicaid attached to welfare. To replace that benefit, he or she has to earn over a $1000 month more. ($amts are my best guestimate).
It’s a sad fact that people who just barely don’t qualify for welfare are much poorer than those who do. It really is an incentive not to work.
Nobody on welfare has all they need (and most of the stories about welfare recipients with 50″ flat screen TVs are bunk) but they are closer to having what they need than someone making just over the welfare-qualifying amount.
In addition to what I said above about welfare, it should be noted that welfare is generally not available to people who do not have dependent children OR who are not physically or mentally disabled.
Donna,
I come from pretty poor small town/country stock. Most of my relatives were able to live better than their income because of ingenuity. My mom and my aunts sewed curtains and clothes. My father swapped expertise and labor with friends to make house improvements. They took pride in their accomplishments and didn’t complain.
That’s not the attitude that Dems encourage. Poor people are supposed to organize, not to accomplish things but to get the government to give them things. They are told to think of themselves as underprivileged. Someone outside always distributes the privileges and they get the short end of the stick. This is not a healthy attitude to encourage, especially when coupled with an Obama-like snobbery about having the right degrees and not driving a pickup or clinging to religion.
All you have to do is see the word they use for it, entitlement, to understand the mindset it fosters.
“By virtue of my existence, you have to provide for me.”
That’s not a particularly conducive attitude to leading a successful and productive life. In theory it sounds compassionate, and in cases where it truly is the last resort it is, but far too often it’s not the last resort, just the easiest one.
obama’s policies have the outcome of pushing our welfare percentage over the median power point. that is, now there are enough people to outvote the producers. parasites are actually one of the most successful kinds of life on the planet. humans are so adaptive we copy all modes of living, and so we also have to counter all modes of living as if we inside one species have all modes available.
parasites do ok, but they can NEVER dominate. once they do, the decline happens enexorably till the body is so anemic they have no more power. then the process builds up again, they get control, and then the body gets sick till it declines… usually this oscillation is hidden because other states tend to do something once the kind of the hill is to ill to remain.
the basic story resonates in our vampire and children of the night stories… any one notice that even monsters arent bad?
[a utopian sociopathic favoring society would remove those social things we do that protect the normal from them. no?]
the question is do they have enough votes for bread and circuses…
[and on the issue of bipartasanship, screw that. thats two end colluding against a cheated middle, i want my politiicans to fight for whats right, not agre with the others. what ever happened to the adversarial means to truth? oh yeah we switced for collectivism, all sides in agreement against the middle]
add up welfare
add up state jobs (the thing we are ignoring implications of).
and how many, in percentage terms, owe their situations to the state?
obama has been knocking people into welfare, and taking their salaries and making a job in state. he is getting two for one here, with the state players all getting raises, and making more than private sector now (there was a time that was different too).
with companies and unions allowed to tap their employees and constituencies money to vote against them, we have a full fascist state since the companies and unions can pool OPM by changing their rules.
there is no peoples votes if they cant take your money and use it against your vote, and leave you too poor to exercise your vote and back your own candidates.
heck…
its gotten so bad i have to get rid of my sci americans… i crack the new issue and they are making fun of those people who said global warming was a hoax… and it stands in stark contrast with what is known now (too bad those with more sensitive radar arent given credit). not to mention that in fun they bring up amherst and the small pox blankets as a competitor to the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on americans.
any one want to go down the concept of whether the US existed then, whether germ theory was known well then, and then the fact that the blankets were burned according to records and the only thing we have as to giving them was in a letter?
the point being that science journals come populist rags are worthless… ha ha, ho ho, small pox.. and we are now to believe again and forget the lysekoist type science we are now finding more and more crud from?
heck, turn to the article on why we have no hair, and they dash off AAT. they do so in a tiny blue box as a mish mosh. they say that its not a good theory. its intenneble, and on and on, then mention different bodies of water, leaving out oceans (which is key since its oceans we went into, not marshes). then says we would have been eaten by crocks and hippos… its typical socialist communist refutation which does not even bring up the ideas of the other correctly not even showing that much respect for the other side! that is, so much disrespect is being given, that not even understanding and proper refutation is given (this is why it works – because in prior culture someone would have clocked the good doctor for such behavior!!! and so the doctor would never have pushed contemptous thought and behavior to the point that its an alternative to debate!).
we went to the oceans… it gives us our hair patterns, the lack of hair, and a reason to stand up (and a support to do it). it backs why we are the only ones that can swim, we can open our eyes in both fresh and salt water, and see in color. as far as predators go, the seas are comparitively safe. lions and large predators will not enter the ocean. tigers might, but they dont go that deep. waves takes special swimming skill that fresh water dog paddle just dont cut well. we have webbed hands and toes. our skin exudes salt water, not oils. and when we get cuts and wounds the sea disenfects them and helps them heal. we love the sea naturally… list goes on.
any decent and respectful refutation would attempt to bring all that up, not dash off a view as if we were children and this is what we are supposed to know regardless of fact.
and thats the point… with obama so much of the old careful cloth has now been removed. the people behind him that were careful of how much of the bs they would put in now are putting so much all over that you can see it an even get annoyed at it..
like a constant droning, you finally become aware of.
all of this is intertwined, as there was a time when a family would refuse welfare. that welfare was something you didnt do until you really had no choice. but then again that was before minimum wage laws guaranteed deflating currency value by inflation, and insuring that there was a welfare state. this is the REAL outocme of miniimum wage, not LIVING WAGE… what happens is that through inflation and devaluation, eventually the bottom of inflation moves down and more jobs can be done as the devalued amount reaches the marginal costs of those tasks… then they raise it again, and so the process starts anew… meanwhile citizens who have to pay taxes cant live on it, and people who are here illegally make more than even well earning people (you would be suprised). the poor even have to pay to the state their taxes first, then get it back… why? because you cant skim interest earnings for holding it… screw the poor…
they are the things they say the other side is doing, and they speak in inversions. so when they are going to help someting, they hurt it. then their power grows as we increase the help. when they say they are going to build up the economy, they are going to knock it down. when they say more jobs, it means less. when they say beter care, they mean less care is better for them.
etc.
they are so greedy that collectively they take and own everything, including the people. but thats not enough!!!! they are so greedy that they have to have the future now, and so peddle to the metal they burn the machine trying to have tomorrow that is out of their reach today through theft and force of will… and when the system breaks down (capitalism), they blame it for not working..
for they beleive that such administered through a complete control can pull the future to today before it would normally come
If Mr. Brown has 200,000 miles on his truck as has been reported, he had that truck long before he ran for the Senate. Obama’s view that it was a prop is clearly at variance with the facts.
Troglaman:
You got it exactly right.
Congratulations.
Mr. Frank: they had a piece on TV about Brown, interviewing people who knew him in the neighborhood. They talked to his next-door-neighbor, and also the mechanic who works on the now-famous truck. Both said he’s had the truck for ages, long before this race. Takes out his own garbage, etc. etc.. And everyone they interviewed—his basketball coach in high school, Democrats in the state senate—seemed to love and admire him. Everyone said what you see is what you get.
A perfect foil to Obama.
There is a hint of something else in the Slate article.
Welfare is the Democrat’s gift to the poor for which they are expected to be eternally grateful and not such ingrates as to succeed in life and, God forbid, vote Republican. You know, after all we Democrats give them, why does Kansas vote Republican which is so against their interests. Better yet, we give them someone else’s money for which we are smart enough to get the credit.
In a very similar vein, affirmative action is the Democrat’s gift to minorities for which they are expected to be eternally grateful and never to succeed (or think) on their own. It is a sin of unimaginable proportions for a minority person to think for one’s self, especially hateful conservative thoughts. As a minority, one must forever acknowledge being relegated to second class citizenship (and an inability to compete on one’s own) and be thankful for one’s masters in the Democrat Party. (By the way, is this really why education in the inner cities is ineffectual, no matter how much money is thrown at it? After hearing in election after election how more funds for education are all that is needed to fix the problems in the schools, and watching the results grow worse from year to year, I think that any plan, like charter schools, that might actually succeed in educating inner city children is not opposed because the teachers’ unions oppose the competition. Rather, the opposition is much more sinister. Truly educated minorities might actually leave the Democrat party fold and what Democrat wants to take that chance.)
“It really is an incentive not to work.” Donna B
Well then. Would this view apply to the upper 2% who have been receiving tax breaks? Wouldn’t they qualify as being on the dole and decide to vote the party that gave it to them?
Here’s the problem – Feeding welfare costs us (taxpayers) much much less than granting the tax breaks we’ve given the elite 2%.
So then, if one resorts to pragmatism, those qualified to have received those tax breaks given the upper 2% cost this country a whole lot more than those addicted welfare.
I, troglaman, would actually like to have this argument ’cause I humbly think I’ll win.
“tax breaks given the upper 2% cost this country a whole lot more than those addicted welfare.” the mighty troglaman
Sorry…”those addicted TO welfare”.
“Truly educated minorities might actually leave the Democrat party…” Steve
Are you implying these “truly educated minorities” currently reside in the Democrat party?
Just curious.
troglaman.
I suppose you’re right, if you consider “tax breaks” as being high enough to match welfare expenditures.
What’s the diff between a tax break and simply not taxing the super rich at a confiscatory rate to make dems’ hearts happy?
As you know, but are trying to obfuscate, the problem with welfare is not the cost in dollars, it’s the cost to the people who’ve become addicted to it.
That’s okay. You didn’t fool anybody.
Try again.
> Hmmm. Not unlike, say, J.K. Rowling. Or—Whoopi Goldberg, for that matter.
Whoppi Goldberg in a bikini?
Um… “Ew”.
“Well then. Would this view apply to the upper 2% who have been receiving tax breaks? Wouldn’t they qualify as being on the dole and decide to vote the party that gave it to them?”
Sorry, no.
See if you can understand this fundamental difference. (And I’m granting you the whole 2% concept which I think is probably full of ….) Those 2% went out and earned money. Those on welfare didn’t earn a dime. Not taking money out of the pocket of someone who has earned it is not “being on the dole”. It’s their money. They got it through working. The idea that you’ve decided to confiscate less of it from them through the power of government coercion doesn’t mean it wasn’t theirs in the first place.
On the other hand, welfare recipients are just the opposite. You’re giving them money they didn’t earn. It wasn’t theirs in the first place. That is truly the meaning of being “on the dole”. When someone else is paying you’re living expenses, you’re on the dole.
“So then, if one resorts to pragmatism, those qualified to have received those tax breaks given the upper 2% cost this country a whole lot more than those addicted welfare.”
It hasn’t cost anything. The fact that I walk past a person on the street and decide not to hit him over the head and take his wallet does not cost me anything. Or, if I hit him over the head and take $20 from his wallet but leave him the other $10, that doesn’t mean he just cost me $10. It wasn’t my money to begin with.
But if I’m walking down the street and a beggar accosts me and I give him $10, then yes, that cost me $10. I have $10 less in my wallet than before I met the guy. Surely you see the difference.
“I, troglaman, would actually like to have this argument ’cause I humbly think I’ll win.”
I humbly think you’re full of it if you think you can win an argument based on the concept that not stealing money from someone is the equivalent of giving it to them.
kcom.
“based on the concept”
Lots of luck with that. It’s the way dems think
“As you know, but are trying to obfuscate, the problem with welfare is not the cost in dollars, it’s the cost to the people who’ve become addicted to it.” Richard
Thank you, Richard. Then it follows that those upper 2% who’ve been given a nearly 1 trillion dollar tax cut per year might’ve also become addicted. Now add up the cost of the welfare addicted vs the cost of the trillion dollar tax-cut junkies. I eagerly await your conclusions.
“I eagerly await your conclusions.”
What, by ignoring my argument? Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Taking money from someone at a lesser rate is not a cost. Paying someone money they didn’t earn is a cost. Equating them is like comparing apples and rocks.
Why do you feel you’re entitled to someone’s else hard-earned money to the point that you think by not taking it from them you’re giving it to them? When exactly did you earn it?
Honestly, your philosophy is indistinguishable from that of a Mafia extortionist.
The top 2% “given” a tax cut?
What you describe as being “given” is the state not taking as much from them as you’d like.
That’s not “given”, except for lefties.
And the point remains, obfuscate and distract as you will, that we were talking about the human cost of becoming dependent on welfare. Not the dollars.
It’s like you don’t actually get it or something.
Why do you feel you’re entitled to someone’s else hard-earned money to the point that you think by not taking it from them you’re giving it to them?
because he was taught the same way the people of germany were taught by the socialists.
that everyone is equal (the same) and so those who are earning more couldnt do that unless they were cheating, and if they are cheating, taking waht they got by cheating is not stealing.
this is the argument he refuses to actually verbalize, but its the core of his position.
and i am afraid i came to the party too late for him to get it.
in germany they described the jews as being only 3% of the popyulation but owned 10-20% of the bsinesses.
how did they get good people to go along with the bad? the EXACT same way that is being pushed here.
they convinced good people with a sense of honor and propriety, by using faulty logic and math, to seem to perceive that some people are cheating.
they bank on his ignorance…
if he is a ceo and he is not cheating, he will just disbelieve, so the propaganda doesnt work there.
if he is a conservative with economics knowlege and no propaganada, he will percieve it like the ceo, and people here, and say the point is bs.
but if he is sitting around in complete ignorance with his thumb up his but incapable of imagining honest earning to that degree (because we are all weual to him the person with their thumbutt)!!!
its SOOOOO much easier for him to sit at home and promote this false view, becasue if he sells us on it, he thinks he did somthing good.
why? cause his masters told him,. he is incapable of thinking for himself.
he confuses parroting and memorizeing speaking points as being clever and erudite and intelligent.
a african grey can learn all of the gettysburg adress, but doesnt understand it, despite repeating it.
to those who are also ignorant
they would think the bird was really smart
its not…
its only smart RELATIVE to even less capable things.
and thats what he is shopping for.
a place wher parrots havent been taught where he can enter and foment the ideas that are so good… and thereby be the big man on the tiny branch of heirarchy, and take up some pretend cargo cult version of respect.
usually, they get trashed and dont understand why, they go back to their thumbutts, and stew (not ruminate), and learn more lines to parrot as if they didnt have the right combination, and then go find another group to see if the clouds open the horns blow and the holy host and see bows before his grandeur.
after 40 years of this, they change sides and realize what a dupe they were.
🙂
It’s like you don’t actually get it or something.
he does get it.
however he believes that you win a debate by refusing to concede to the facts!!!!!!!!!
if he refuses to concede and fillibusters you, he thinks he won. he beomes a legend in his own mind by holding out for the truth.
but thats not how it works.
he is playing old maid to your wist, and thinks he won when he lost.
bring it down to his level
momma and dadda give you an allowance of 20 dollars a week
but, dad says that you have to give to the home fund before you can enjoy that allowance.
so dad takes half of it from you for the house.
you now have 10 dollars.
next week you complain.
so dad says he will give you a dollar more
so dippy here walks off happy, why?
he thinks he won.
he now gets ll dollars.
and dad still keeps pocketing 9
and telling him he is a good boy and helping
even though dad is only taking back the money he gave.
isnt dad clever? he gets to control the son by pretending to give him money, and instead takes it right back…
by circulating the cash through the boy, he gets to dictate to the boy for nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
our poor misunderstood person here wants us to be like that boy.