Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thaank you for reenforcing my point. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.It's the conservative conundrum on children:
Abortion is murder, but once they are born let the little bastards starve.
Republicans don't starve anybody--irresponsible parents do.
the miserable pukes that passed the bill stop off at Starbucks and get their $6 cup and $4 pastry every f'n morning on the way to vote against food for a kid.
Fem
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
The fundamental libertarian argument is that it's not the government's job to make sure you've got something to eat, adult or child. Call it cold-hearted if you want, but taking someone's money forcibly through taxes to give to someone else is still theft. Saying someone therefore doesn't care about children because they don't support governmental theft is disingenuous. They're two separate issues entirely.When someone is an adult and able to fend for themselves, that's a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.
But when we're talking about a kid, a child who has absolutely zero (0) control over their situation (past or present), that's something entirely different.
So when a libertarian/conservative standard is applied to them, it shows little fundamental humanity.
Will your political opponents jump on that? Of course. But in that case, it's perfectly understandable.
.
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
Repubs save them in the womb and let them starve out of the womb.
People with actual human compassion care about them before and after birth.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
Repubs save them in the womb and let them starve out of the womb.
People with actual human compassion care about them before and after birth.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The fundamental libertarian argument is that it's not the government's job to make sure you've got something to eat, adult or child. Call it cold-hearted if you want, but taking someone's money forcibly through taxes to give to someone else is still theft. Saying someone therefore doesn't care about children because they don't support governmental theft is disingenuous. They're two separate issue entirely.When someone is an adult and able to fend for themselves, that's a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.
But when we're talking about a kid, a child who has absolutely zero (0) control over their situation (past or present), that's something entirely different.
So when a libertarian/conservative standard is applied to them, it shows little fundamental humanity.
Will your political opponents jump on that? Of course. But in that case, it's perfectly understandable.
.
A libertarian would ask "is feeding needy children something that's important and something that people would give money to and/or do directly themselves? Yes? Then why does government need to take a cut in this transaction?" Claiming that government has to do it is exactly the problem because it helps to make people charitably complacent.
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
Repubs save them in the womb and let them starve out of the womb.
People with actual human compassion care about them before and after birth.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
And believe it or not, we used to have people like that years ago. We called them.......what was it now........it's coming to me........OH YEAH. We called them parents.
So, government is the only vehicle by which these low-income families, children, seniors and people with disabilities and veterans can receive help?low-income working families, children, seniors, people with disabilities and veterans, -
tell the truth .......
It takes $$ money from tight ass RW's and feeds needy people so they gripe about it.
When someone is an adult and able to fend for themselves, that's a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.
As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.
So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.
One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.
It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.
Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.
So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.
We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.
Here is the problem:
We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.
On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.
So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.
The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.
But when we're talking about a kid, a child who has absolutely zero (0) control over their situation (past or present), that's something entirely different.
So when a libertarian/conservative standard is applied to them, it shows little fundamental humanity.
Will your political opponents jump on that? Of course. But in that case, it's perfectly understandable.
.
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
Repubs save them in the womb and let them starve out of the womb.
People with actual human compassion care about them before and after birth.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Nobody is letting them starve. This is the lib catch phrase. Looks like you swallowed it. Didn't think a libertarian would fall for that.
It's the conservative conundrum on children:
Abortion is murder, but once they are born let the little bastards starve.
Republicans don't starve anybody--irresponsible parents do.
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
Repubs save them in the womb and let them starve out of the womb.
People with actual human compassion care about them before and after birth.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Nobody is letting them starve. This is the lib catch phrase. Looks like you swallowed it. Didn't think a libertarian would fall for that.
Childhood hunger is a big problem in this country, often the meal at school is the biggest and best meal that many kids get all day.
I volunteer with a food bank/soup kitchen and there are far more children suffering than people are allowed to admit thanks to their partisanship.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
It's the conservative conundrum on children:
Abortion is murder, but once they are born let the little bastards starve.
Republicans don't starve anybody--irresponsible parents do.
Let me guess, you're "pro-life"?
Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN.
You mean the children that liberals weren't able to murder in the womb, right?
Repubs save them in the womb and let them starve out of the womb.
People with actual human compassion care about them before and after birth.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
And believe it or not, we used to have people like that years ago. We called them.......what was it now........it's coming to me........OH YEAH. We called them parents.
So, what you are saying is they a kid that has the bad luck to be born to shit bag parents deserves to suffer.
Gotcha!
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
