[talaniman]

I didn't exagerrate your position. Go back and read what you posted. Why should Trump release his tax returns? It's his private business. The IRS has reviewed all of them and found nothing illegal. As for raising people out of poverty, after several decades of the Great Society programs and trilions of dollars spent, we have learned by now, I hope, that you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.

Most of the wealthy now are liberal democrats, so your theory does not hold water.

This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote.

[jlisenbe]

This is what it looks like when you have life and BS all screwed up, and the right to vote.

That's what someone says when they have no answers.

[talaniman]

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.

you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.

That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor, and defending that trickle down crap. it's a tired old distraction.

[jlisenbe]

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.

And again, a rant but no answers. Pathetic. Why don't you try posting something that makes sense?

you cannot raise people out of poverty. They have to do that themselves.

That's conservative blaming poor people for being poor, and defending that trickle down crap. it's a tired old distraction.

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.

[talaniman]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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?

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[Wondergirl]

we should aggressively discourage out of wedlock pregnancies.

Please list three ways that can be successfully accomplished.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

Please list three ways that can be successfully accomplished.

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.

[paraclete]

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.



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.

Now jl you know some women dont know what causes it since they dont own a gabbage bush

[talaniman]

Starving kids is your great solution? I'd rather take your money and give it to them and watch your head explode.

[jlisenbe]

I'd rather take your money and give it to them

The motto of the liberals. "Tax the other guy! Spend someone else's money and then act noble for having done so!"

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.