This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's what someone says when they have no answers.Quote:
This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote.
You have a better explanation for your bizarre notions of liberals? It's either you're screwed up about the basic facts of life, or you're a loon. Be happy to entertain your suggestion to explain YOURSELF.
That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor, and defending that trickle down crap. it's a tired old distraction.Quote:
you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.
And again, a rant but no answers. Pathetic. Why don't you try posting something that makes sense?Quote:
You have a better explanation for your bizarre notions of liberals? It's either you're screwed up about the basic facts of life, or you're a loon. Be happy to entertain your suggestion to explain YOURSELF.
Yeah, when you're an unmarried woman and decide to have three children out of wedlock with no support and think the government will take care of you, then that's pretty much a poverty of your own doing. Now Tal thinks that taking someone else's money and just handing it out to poor people is the answer. If it is, then how do you explain the utter failure of the Great Society to reduce the poverty levels? We'd do better to make sure they have good schools for their kids and, as a nation, to discourage out of wedlock births which are generally a disaster for the children. If we really cared about children, we'd have a national campaign against out of wedlock births. And please don't come back with you tired assertions of conservatives don't care about what's happening at the southern border, blah, blah, blah. Address the point. Absent fathers and lousy schools are the two biggest problems poor kids face.Quote:
That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor, and defending that trickle down crap. it's a tired old distraction.Quote:
you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.
Talk about rants, that was nothing but JL, since in reality there is no law against having children out of wedlock, or prohibiting people from getting assistance IF they qualify under the law. There is even a process to make law, or change the law. You passing a petition or something?
If you would trouble yourself to read and think a little, you would see that I have not suggested any laws. You have made the claim that poor people have no responsibility for their own poverty ("That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor"). I have shown you how silly that claim is. Never suggested any new laws. Never suggested changing any laws. Just plain ole truth. And when I suggest a national campaign against out of wedlock births, I am speaking of the same kind of thing we do about smoking or about, of all things, cruel treatment of animals. We could pass laws, however, assuring poor people of access to a good school. I would think that you would be on board with that.
If you would read better and think more yourself you would remember I was on board with EVERY child having access to a good school, it's just our disagreement is with the poor having as much control over their own economic situation as you say they do, and you go further as to completely blame them for it. That's the problem with you and conservative thinking, you want to bash anybody who doesn't agree completely with your bullying tactics and your one size fits all solutions because that's what you did.
Thank God even some repubs in those places where you can't get one job, let alone 3, recognize that those who do fall between the cracks need more specialized help than you are willing to give, and do the right thing by them. It's a simple acknowledgment that the great economy hasn't reached everybody as it has others and more needs to be done besides criticizing the least fortunate among us.
So count me out of the finger pointing, bashing, national campaign for those who have made a mistake or two, or three, and gotten lost along the way. Now go get that poor woman with 3 kids a babysitter and a bus token so she can earn her own way without taking YOUR money. I see little gained in hammering people for mistakes rather than helping overcome them. You just have to be right and want everybody to know it, which is why everybody else has to be wrong.
So how many single moms have you hired a babysitter for? Are you doing that yourself, or do you just want to sound noble because you are in favor of forcing other people to do it?Quote:
So count me out of the finger pointing, bashing, national campaign for those who have made a mistake or two, or three, and gotten lost along the way. Now go get that poor woman with 3 kids a babysitter and a bus token so she can earn her own way without taking YOUR money.
I haven't suggested we bash anyone or point fingers at anyone. I don't think we ought to bash people who have lung cancer due to smoking, but it would be completely stupid of us not to warn other people against smoking. The same is true of this casual attitude we have developed towards single motherhood. It is a disaster for both the mom and the children. Sadly, you don't care about that. Your liberal political views force you to just cheer for them and hope, I guess, that they continue that destructive practice.
Just laying out the obstacles to working women that are single divorced or unsupported for whatever reasons. If acknowledging those realities is a casual attitude then maybe you adjust yours and tackle the problem of what's already been done. I get you want people to stop doing such things but it remains that the deed has been done so NOW WHAT?
Waiting for the conservative solution to what must be done AFTER mistakes have been made.
I'll make a deal with you. I will happily join in that conversation if you will agree that we should aggressively discourage out of wedlock pregnancies.Quote:
Waiting for the conservative solution to what must be done AFTER mistakes have been made.
No deal, just answer the question or at least have the balls to admit you got no solution. I got no solution either dude, but when the deed has been done we should help as best we can. If agressively discourage is beating people upside the head with a bible or bat then forget it. Just assumming of course that's what you meant, if not correct me.
Please list three ways that can be successfully accomplished.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your "we", of course, is meaningless. What you mean is that "we" should borrow even more money to pay people to have children out of wedlock. And I already said that we shouldn't point fingers or beat people up about it, so you can "assume" that your "assuming" is completely ridiculous.Quote:
we should help as best we can. If agressively discourage is beating people upside the head with a bible or bat then forget it. Just assumming of course that's what you meant, if not correct me.
How do we campaign, with some marginal success, against other harmful practices? We have ad campaigns that people shouldn't smoke, or that they should have their houses tested for radon gas, or that drinking and driving are dangerous, so we could do the same for out of wedlock births. We could also change the welfare system so that women, from this day forward, who have a second child out of wedlock will get no additional benefits. First one was possibly a mistake. Second one is intentional.Quote:
Please list three ways that can be successfully accomplished.
Now jl you know some women dont know what causes it since they dont own a gabbage bushQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Starving kids is your great solution? I'd rather take your money and give it to them and watch your head explode.
The motto of the liberals. "Tax the other guy! Spend someone else's money and then act noble for having done so!"Quote:
I'd rather take your money and give it to them
Children are not going to starve. If a woman can't feed her child, then the state comes in and places him/her in foster care.
Either way WE pay for it so let's understand it's not just YOU, it's ALL of us. The difference is you don't like it. So we can end this notion of just YOUR money can't we? That's just not accurate like most things conservatives post.
Your quote was, "I'd rather take your money and give it to them." Now you're changing your tune.Quote:
Either way WE pay for it so let's understand it's not just YOU, it's ALL of us. The difference is you don't like it. So we can end this notion of just YOUR money can't we? That's just not accurate like most things conservatives post.
What you got your fingers in your ears and holding your nose? How do you do that, or are you tone deaf as well?I got no problem with bread, milk, and shelter for poor kids, but the idea makes your head explode which is amusing for a bible thumping deficit hawk. Makes no sense to deny anyone help to feed kids while hollering they should have them no matter what.
As I've already told you a thousand times that I am all for individuals helping the poor. I do so and encourage others to do so. But when you advocate for taking money from other people to help the poor, then you are much closer to theft than you are to charity. Use your money to help the poor and then you will have some reason to regard it as a sign of character.
I pay the same thing you do for the poor, and don't judge character by how much they have and never would. That's blaming the poor for being poor and par for the course for some conservatives. Losing a job or not having the skills for a well paying one or not having the resources to relocate to one is not a sign of character but aptitude. I guess low skilled workers have low character? I guess in a small town when plants close those workers are of low character? How about the 50 year old guy who got phased out by automation, or overseas imports? They have low characters?
What if personal charity giving is inadequate and more help is needed?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have no idea how much I give to the poor. No idea at all.Quote:
I pay the same thing you do for the poor, and don't judge character by how much they have and never would.
Of course there are many poor people who are responsible for their own poverty. A woman, for instance, who gets pregnant multiple times with no marriage is very reponsible for her own poverty and the poverty of her children. Lazy men who won't work are likewise responsible. It is certainly not all poor people, but it is many.Quote:
That's blaming the poor for being poor
I was not referring to the character of poor people. I was saying that you liberals who pat yourselves endlessly on the back because you care so much for poor people that you are willing to force others to give money to them have no claim to character.Quote:
Losing a job or not having the skills for a well paying one or not having the resources to relocate to one is not a sign of character but aptitude. I guess low skilled workers have low character? I guess in a small town when plants close those workers are of low character? How about the 50 year old guy who got phased out by automation, or overseas imports? They have low characters?
Be nice if you had the capacity to seperate the REAL poor people from the lazy ones, but that's what the guidelines are for and every state administers their own programs. So don't blame liberals for taking your money and patting themselves on the back since conservatives run Mississippi last I checked and are the ones taking your money and giving it to the poor. Hey the dufus and repubs have had the congress since 2016 so why are you still blaming liberals any way?
I think you are a bit carried away by your own right wing spin BRUDDER!
1. Welfare programs are federally funded and federally controlled.Quote:
So don't blame liberals for taking your money and patting themselves on the back since conservatives run Mississippi last I checked and are the ones taking your money and giving it to the poor. Hey the dufus and repubs have had the congress since 2016 so why are you still blaming liberals any way?
2. Repubs have not had the Congress since 2016. The dems took over the House in 2018.
Noticed in this morning's news that Joe Biden says he will not honor a Senate subpoena to appear for the impeachment trial. I just wonder how all of the liberal dems will handle that after giving Trump so much noise about not allowing several executive branch employees to appear. Are they now going to say that Biden is clearly attempting to cover up his own guilt???
1. Welfare programs are federally funded and federally controlled.
And locally administered. They decide who gets what and how much, so if the lazy workers get money it's because someone from your state or county, or city said so. The Governor and state legislatures makes those rules for your state even if they are federal funded by the nations taxpayers and federally REGULATED. Now you may have your opinions of right and wrong and who does what for how much, but that is totally the control of your own locals, so stop whining and complaining about what the feds taking your money and giving it to someone else. Providing such services to YOUR fellow statesmen is a part of the functions of local government. take it up with them.
Or call the dufus and beetch and see where that gets you.
2. Repubs have not had the Congress since 2016. The dems took over the House in 2018.
Repubs still have 2/3rds of the congress even with the dems taking the house so lets be accurate if you cannot be honest. They took the congress back in 2012 and added the WH in 2016, so if things aren't the way you like them don't blame the guys who just got there in January. See how you wingers love to cry and whine and complain about liberals who have been completely out of power for years?
I suppose though facing your own incompetence ain't that easy for you after decades of lies and smears against everybody and their mama. If that's what you rally around then have at it but don't pee on my leg and blame the rain dude like the dufus is doing YOU. Now get your hand off your nose and go wash your hands because you look downright GOOFY making up excuses to be stupid.
YOUR WELCOME FOR THE HEADS UP!
No, they don't. The feds control the groundrules.Quote:
And locally administered. They decide who gets what and how much, so if the lazy workers get money it's because someone from your state or county, or city said so. The Governor and state legislatures makes those rules for your state even if they are federal funded by the nations taxpayers and federally REGULATED.
There are two houses of congress, so in what world does controlling one of them constitute two thirds?Quote:
Repubs still have 2/3rds of the congress even with the dems taking the house so lets be accurate if you cannot be honest.
If pointing out the many, many errors and inconsistencies of your statements is whining, then I guess I'm guilty.Quote:
See how you wingers love to cry and whine and complain about liberals who have been completely out of power for years?
No bigger group of liars than the two Clintons and Obama.Quote:
I suppose though facing your own incompetence ain't that easy for you after decades of lies and smears against everybody and their mama. If that's what you rally around then have at it but don't pee on my leg and blame the rain dude like the dufus is doing YOU. Now get your hand off your nose and go wash your hands because you look downright GOOFY making up excuses to be stupid.
[QUOTE=jlisenbe;3846338]No, they don't. The feds control the groundrules.{/QUOTE]
The feds are the president and the congress and the prez appoints all the heads of departments so that's the dufus. You had the whole government at one time so what's the squaking about?
My bad, I should have said government not congress, but you knew what I meant, and we agree your guilty of whining.Quote:
There are two houses of congress, so in what world does controlling one of them constitute two thirds? If pointing out the many, many errors and inconsistencies of your statements is whining, then I guess I'm guilty.
Sorry you were not competent to prove what you say after so many investigations in 8 years, and I hope we are not as incompetent as you guys were in our ONE year. Impeachment was avoidable if you had used a muzzle, leash, or cage on the dufus. Now be quiet we have a public service to perform.Quote:
No bigger group of liars than the two Clintons and Obama.
Yes, about the many, many errors and inconsistencies of your statements.Quote:
and we agree your guilty of whining
The many lies of those three are a matter of record. I didn't suggest they were guilty of crimes, but it is worth noting that Bill Clinton had to give up his law license for five years after he left the White House.Quote:
Sorry you were not competent to prove what you say after so many investigations in 8 years,
And the dufus family is banned from charity work and government housing contracts and is facing all kinds of investigations by STATE governments. That's a matter of record too if you don't count the campaign workers found guilty of CRIMES already. That's a lot for a first term president.
Donald Trump's family is not banned from charity work or government housing contracts. He is not facing "all kinds of investigations" from state governments. Be honest.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...eneral-1154417
https://time.com/4508889/presidentia...-donald-trump/
https://time.com/5557644/donald-trum...tions-mueller/
Still fact checking the second link to verify the accuracy of my statement.
The first link is speculation. "New York state Attorney General Barbara Underwood has asked a judge to ban President Donald Trump from working with any nonprofit organization for 10 years from when he leaves office, alleging his foundation regularly broke federal and state law." Garbage from 14 months ago.
Second link: More garbage. "It is true that there was no legal decision about whether or not the Trump Management Corporation did engage in discriminatory practices."
And, unsurprisingly, the third link just listed a litany of tired old accusations.
This is why I always ask you to document your allegations. This is where we always end up.
Not unlike your allegations against liberals and dems, specifically the Clintons and Obama. You ignoring the 6 convictions of the dufus campaign cronies? Of course you are. Just like you brush away the other active investigations by the states and ignore his charities were disbanded and made to pay retributions to other charities. That wasn't even good selective spin, but go ahead and keep spinning away. Doesn't change the facts, just shows you have no answers, and yes the dufus may well be kept from any tax exempt charity activities for 10 years after he leaves office, so that particular case isn't over yet.
Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations. Pure politics.
The misdeeds of the Clintons and Obama are plainly true. BC, for instance, had to give up his law license for five years after he left the WH. He definitely lied to a fed grand jury. Those facts are not in dispute anywhere except, I guess, in your own mind. Obama said one thing about Benghazi, and two weeks later sent Susan Rice out to say something entirely different. He said Obamacare would allow us to keep our doctors and our policies, and that turned out not to be the case. Those are simply true and accepted by everyone who knows anything about what they're talking about. As to Trump, yes, he has had allegations of wrongdoing. He has made some questionable business decisions, but I don't know of anything illegal he has been proven to have done.Quote:
Not unlike your allegations against liberals and dems, specifically the Clintons and Obama.
Really? Take a look at this, and then take out your own garbage. You find anything I have alleged to be true to not be the case, then we can talk about it.Quote:
Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations. Pure politics.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5A77&FORM=VIRE
I prefer to talk about something more current as we have beat that Biden distraction to death. Obama sent Biden to the Ukraine, and he wasn't acting alone as the international community called for the Ukraine prosecutor to be fired. I guess we ignore that part huh? Don't answer because you have so far with your half truth argument parroting your dufus.
I'm glad you become honest enough to admit that the allegations against Biden are true. That's progress. It was money approved by Congress and you have stated that it is illegal to not give it. Oh well.Quote:
Obama sent Biden to the Ukraine, and he wasn't acting alone as the international community called for the Ukraine prosecutor to be fired. I guess we ignore that part huh?
Nobody argued that Biden didn't do it, but it wasn't for personal gain, and was part of an international movement. How do you ignore those little FACTS? Oh wait I get it, it's not a fact unless the dufus says it is.
no it's fake news you haven't been listeningQuote:
it's not a fact unless the dufus says it is.
Oh yes you did. You posted, "Another fact you IGNORE. Remember to document your own allegations which so far have proved to be garbage as we speak, like the Biden allegations."Quote:
Nobody argued that Biden didn't do it,
How do you know it wasn't for personal gain? How do you know it was only part of an international movement? How do you know those are facts? Is it because Biden said so?Quote:
but it wasn't for personal gain, and was part of an international movement. How do you ignore those little FACTS?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 AM. |