Anyone but Obama

Why did you choose to omit all of the group definitions? Okie didn't say “cohort member”, he said “cohort” in a singular form and followed that up with "he" reinforcing the singular usage. If you don't understand the difference, which I'm sure you don't, feel free to live in ignorance. I don't really care.

 

I did not say it was not also a group, but you did say "A cohort is a group of people not an individual." Every definition I looked up disagreed with you. And, no, they were not definitions of “cohort member”. They were definitions of "cohort". Yes, it is singular (or plural). Don't tell me this is going to be another of you rants about how the dictionaries are wrong.

 

Seriously? Are you seriously going to try to admonish me for what you think is an improper use of diction in this instance? For your edification, the word "cohort" in this context is singular. It means "accomplice" or "associate" or "colleague". Certainly there are some dictionaries on your campus you can reference. I expect an apology. Thank you.

Oh, he's a Democrat corporatist now? I was just going by what you said previously:

http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/anyone-but-obama.3854/page-2#post-68100

 

Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. But one thing I did not get was an admission that I and the dictionaries were correct let alone an apology.

 

Yeah, I've been there, too. I think I'll never get an admission that he was wrong, but the readers here can judge for themselves. From what I've observed (and from his latest foray into English language instruction), formal education is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.

 

In the context you used it, it was used incorrectly. I am sorry I pointed it out. I am sorry mostly because it fuels another unimportant rant. It was more of an aside than a consequential issue but any port in a storm I guess.

 

The dictionaries use it exactly as he did; "Your other dim-witted cohort on this forum....." i.e. "The senator strode into the room followed by his faithful cohort, his son-in-law." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cohort. So far I have given you 4 references and all you have returned is you ignorance. Try finding something else to support your idiocy, Nasty (if you don't mind my calling you by your middle name).

 

This is the last I'll say on the matter since I don't want this to devolve into a semantics class. I used the word correctly and you are wrong. Please ask one of the more knowledgeable professors at your college. For instance, Oliver Hardy was Stan Laurel's cohort in the same way you are Tomc's cohort.

 

At least he'll give them a good battle!

 

"...and now for something completely different..."

...Four more years!

 

Yeah...what's one to do? The alternative is a republican.

 

If a Republican ran for office and convinced me he/she wasn't going to make things harder on the poor I could vote for him/her. It's unlikely since most of the focus, from both sides, is on the rich or middle class. The poor are rarely mentioned. One of the main reasons I'd have a hard time even considering a Republican is that they typically consider 'entitlements' as optional in a budget. I know a lot of poor people and I can tell you that those funds are critical for their survival.

 

I think you might be surprised at how well most people can survive without entitlements. I do not remember the exact specifics, but with unemployment at 3 months, most people managed to find a job the month after their unemployment ended. When the unemployment was extended to 6 months, most people managed to find a job the month after their unemployment ended. When the unemployment was extended to 9 months, most people managed to find a job the month after their unemployment ended. Notice anything coincidental there? I am sure someone is going to jump all over me for getting the numbers wrong, but I assure you that the generality is correct.

 

Your comment reminded me of the time Barbara Bush visited the survivors of Katrina who were living in a shelter. "They never had it so good." Unreal

Your argument against unemployment extensions may have some merit, but the people who receive that type of entitlement are considered the working-poor, and not the poor. The working-poor live paycheck to paycheck, rarely saving enough money to weather a 'bad spot' in their lives, while the poor have no money and live day to day on scraps. You may think the poor are lazy for not becoming the working-poor, but most are older, disabled, or otherwise unfit for work. They rely on other entitlements that are currently under attack (medicare, social security, etc.) and there is no saftey net for them if the checks stop. People will die without those types of entitlements.

 

My argument extends to welfare also. And, yes, there probably are many out there who are "disabled, or otherwise unfit for work", but there are also plenty out there who are lazy and I will include drug addicted here. I have no problem with a safety net, but people don't live in a safety net anywhere except welfare. As for your statement, "People will die without those types of entitlements.", I heard the same argument when Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. Funny thing is , that never came to fruition. What does that tell you about welfare? And you will never convince me that we should be paying for someone to go and get high.

 

Why do we have to have so many different programs and agencies..welfare, food stamps, unemployment, social security, social security disability, medicare, medicaid, obamacare, chicken giveaways, earned income credits, WIC, child credits, school lunch programs, housing assistance, and so on - there are literally hundreds of programs at both the federal and state and local level to provide a 'Safety Net'?

If there is need of a 'Safety Net' for some portion of the population so they can survive, why can't there just be a Department of the Safety Net that handles assistance for whatever they qualify for? And why couldn't it also ensure that, if able, you are doing things that move you out of the safety net. Like trying to find employment or not using drugs, etc? Why do we need to keep creating more and more separate programs and tax schemes run by more and more different agencies and departments with more and more rules and regulations? It just seems that there are so many programs that there has to be a lot of waste and bureaucracy, not to mention fraud and inability to even find assistance at all. All of which does not help people who really need it at all.

 

Republicans consider entitlements perfectly acceptable as long as they apply to themselves. Big oil subsidies are a good example. Billions in profit and they still maintain that they "need" them. It doesn't seem to apply though when it is applied to the poor. Same deal with the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's ok to bail out Wall street, but "too much spending" is the cry when someone suggests the wealthiest (who will still be wealthy) pay a bit more i taxes.

I could never vote republican, absent some major reforming of that mindset, and we know that'll never happen.

 

They never had it so good. There ya go. Republican philosophy 101.

 

Entitlements have become a tool of the left, designed to create a endebted class and loyal voting bloc. The left promises a free ride & who is going to say no the free money, right? When election time comes around the left reminds people of who is giving them their free money & paints Republicans as the bad guys trying to take their money away. Poverty is perpetuated, generation to generation. The left uses entitlements as a drug & they are the pusher.
Anyone who is intellectaully honest knows the best way to help people is to provide opportunities to help them end the cycle of poverty...but it isn't always the easiest or most attractive alternative, is it?

 

It 'never came to fruition' because the deaths of the poor are easily overlooked and/or dismissed. They are 'under the radar'.