I find it odd that republicans claim liberals are all just democrat pawns when really....

[Pumpkin Row]

You can't find a single Conservative that likes Bush. You also claim that Conservatives are pawns, yet they chose Trump over all of the Establishment-pushed candidates, unlike Democrats, who supported Hillary, who had been pushed over every other candidate since the moment she announced her candidacy.

I'd also like to point out that the Republicans LOVE Paul RINO Ryan and not a single Conservative supports him.

You only consider him childish and a moron because you don't agree with him, you neglected to even point out any of his policies as an example.

You're only saying Hillary is irrelevant because she's the most recent example of Democrats doing as they're told like good little pawns. She's also the best example of Democrats being guilty of what they're accusing the other side of. Then again, she IS still placing herself squarely in the public sights by making TV appearances.

Conservatives liked Trump at the time of his presidency. Now many reject him.

No, Trump really is a childish moron. I think Ted Cruz is a scumbag that I don’t agree at all with, but I do think he is intelligent.

Hillary is irrelevant when it comes to a conversation originally centered around Trump. I think it is pointless to talk about her either way, but it doesn’t bother me that she is mentioned so long as it isn’t in the middle of a conversation about Trump as president.

You have no examples of Conservatives rejecting them. You have examples of Republicans always rejecting him, because they had from the start, as most of them serve the establishment to begin with.

You have, again, neglected to give me examples. You merely stated the same thing a second time.

As I said before, she's the most recent example of Democrats being guilty of what they're accusing the rightists of. She ran in the most recent election, and ran against Obama. She recently has had TV appearances. She has placed herself FIRMLY in the public eye. If she was so irrelevant, she would not be trying to hard to remain relevant.

No way. During his administration, conservatives on this board blindly supported the Iraq War. Nowadays, they pretend they rejected it all along.

You didn’t ask for examples. You just stated I didn’t give any. It just seemed too obvious for me to bother mentioning. I have plenty to offer: the borderwall was definitely his dumbest idea by far. His foreign policy is a complete joke. He talks like an 8th grader when it comes to North Korea. He also shelled Syria for no goddamn reason. Oh, and he pulled out of the Paris agreement which left the US the only nation on Earth not in it.

Again, as I said, you cons can bring up Hillary if you want in a topic specifically about her. What I find stupid, however, is that cons on this board will without fail deflect to criticizing Hillary in the middle of a discussion focused specifically on Trump’s actions as president.

That statement depends on who you consider conservatives, and even then, this forum doesn't even represent 1% of the population of this nation.

I pointed out that you lacked examples in my first post, indirectly that would be a request for examples.

The Wall: The border wall is meant to keep illegals from taking jobs from the lower and middle class, I thought you'd support doing something about a problem the middle class faces.

Foreign Policy: What specifically makes his foreign policy a joke? Which part(s)?

NKorea: How does he talk like an eighth grader about N. Korea? What causes you to believe that specifically?

Syria: Didn't they gas their own people?

Paris Agreement: He pulled out of it because it wasn't good for America. Other nations being in the Paris Agreement doesn't mean you should support it without question.

Hillary ran against him, and was supported by the vast majority of the left, making her the perfect recent comparison. It's natural for her to come up in conversations about Trump, as she was his opponent.

Oh trust me. Many self-identified conservatives did.

Illegals typically take jobs that other Americans don’t want. They sure as hell don’t take middle class jobs. Of course all of that is besides the point. The wall is a completely useless idea. These people aren’t dumb. It wouldn’t be hard to scale the wall or simply tunnel under it. Not only that, but it is physically impossible to build a wall on certain stretches on the border. On top of all of that, it border runs through private land in some stretches. There’s even an American town on both sides. Residents trying to protect their land could sue the federal government thus stalling construction. Aside from all of this, 25% of illegal immigrants in this country came here legally by plane but over stayed their visas.

Even if you think intervening in Syria was a good idea, shelling the country in a mostly empty airport accomplished absolutely nothing.

Climate change is a dangerous reality whether you like it or not. Something has to be done.

No that logic still doesn’t work. A conversation about our current president’s actions has nothing to do with Hillary.

Kasich is a moderate AT BEST and called himself a Conservative. The word gets thrown around a lot. Oreo self-identified as a Conservative before revealing himself as HARD left. As much as a like you, simply telling me something during a debate doesn't cause me to automatically believe it. Not because I think you're a liar, but because there are many things in politics that an individual may not be aware of.

No, illegals typically take jobs at a cheaper rate than others would. They take jobs from someone who can't find a job for their skill level, and people coming out f high school. They also take jobs in construction, which is a job that Middle Class Americans DO work. Are you going to tell me that Americans don't want work in construction?

25% is only a fourth, that means 3/4ths are still coming here through the border. If he can find a way, and considering he's a successful businessman, that's not unlikely, the border wall would solve at least part of the illegal immigration problem. That said, there ARE better ideas.

He wasn't trying to cream them, he was showing them that we could. Think of it as a warning shot.

Nothing has to be done about a myth, aside from ceasing to perpetuate it.

Pointing out that the left supported someone guilty of the same or similar actions is a solid method for showing that the left didn't care before. That's probably why most of the left has an issue with bringing her up.

 

[TheDude]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

 

[Billy000]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

 

[TheDude]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

Is that right? That explains why liberals:

Men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.
They remain butt-hurt because the media/polls promised Hillary would win.
You're not aborting humans, they're just a fetus.
Effect doesn't require a cause, which is why they're "owed" entitlements.
If you can't defend yourself pull the race card.
Bill Clinton is good, Roy Moore is bad.

 

[Avatar4321]

...conservatives set an example of being pawns for republicans. As with anything Bush did, conservatives love anything Trump does regardless of what it is.

Conservative voters pretended the Iraq War was a good idea because.....I have no idea and neither did they. It’s just what Republican officials wanted. As well all know, Democrat in congress supported that war too, but most liberals vehemently opposed the war in comparison.

Now they’ve really out did themselves with Trump. Just wow. It does not matter what his childish moron says or does, they will either defend it or deflect to “what about Hillary?!”.

News flash: Hillary is now irrelevant to the conversation. Stop bringing her up in a conversation originally about Trump just because you don’t know how to defend Trump’s actions.

Terrific, you brown-nosed Obama for eight fricken years, brown-nosed Clinton for about a year, and now you want to separate yourself from the Democrat party.

I did neither one of those things.

My mistake, I left out brown-nosing Sanders for about a year.

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

For preaching an ideology currently responsible for the death of hundreds of millions.

 

[debbiedowner]

...conservatives set an example of being pawns for republicans. As with anything Bush did, conservatives love anything Trump does regardless of what it is.

Conservative voters pretended the Iraq War was a good idea because.....I have no idea and neither did they. It’s just what Republican officials wanted. As well all know, Democrat in congress supported that war too, but most liberals vehemently opposed the war in comparison.

Now they’ve really out did themselves with Trump. Just wow. It does not matter what his childish moron says or does, they will either defend it or deflect to “what about Hillary?!”.

News flash: Hillary is now irrelevant to the conversation. Stop bringing her up in a conversation originally about Trump just because you don’t know how to defend Trump’s actions.

Terrific, you brown-nosed Obama for eight fricken years, brown-nosed Clinton for about a year, and now you want to separate yourself from the Democrat party.

I did neither one of those things.

My mistake, I left out brown-nosing Sanders for about a year.

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

Great, you still need to return your Obamaphone.

I bet you're one of those thinkers who think obama started the so called obama phones.

The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

• The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay
  cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
  
  
  
  
• Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
  
  
  
  
  • Medicaid;
    
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
    
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
    
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
    
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
    
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
    
  • National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program;
    
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
    
  • Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
    
  • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
    
  • Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
    
  • State assistance programs (if applicable).
    
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:
  
  

 

[Billy000]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

Is that right? That explains why liberals:

Men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.
They remain butt-hurt because the media/polls promised Hillary would win.
You're not aborting humans, they're just a fetus.
Effect doesn't require a cause, which is why they're "owed" entitlements.
If you can't defend yourself pull the race card.
Bill Clinton is good, Roy Moore is bad.

It isn’t liberals fault you lack the emotional maturity to respect the rights of gay or transgendered people. You pretend that perverts take advantage of this bathroom controversy when in reality they’ve been using the bathroom of their choice for DECADES - long before republicans started whining about it. In fsct, republican politicians have statistically been involved in bathroom assaults much more often than trans people.

Liberals don’t remain butthurt that Clinton lost. We remain butthurt that you people were retarded enough to vote for a toddler instead.

When do liberals on this board say they are “owed” entitlements? We also don’t defend Bill Clinton. No one cares anymore.

 

[debbiedowner]

...conservatives set an example of being pawns for republicans. As with anything Bush did, conservatives love anything Trump does regardless of what it is.

Conservative voters pretended the Iraq War was a good idea because.....I have no idea and neither did they. It’s just what Republican officials wanted. As well all know, Democrat in congress supported that war too, but most liberals vehemently opposed the war in comparison.

Now they’ve really out did themselves with Trump. Just wow. It does not matter what this childish moron says or does, they will either defend it or deflect to “what about Hillary?!”.

News flash: Hillary is now irrelevant to the conversation. Stop bringing her up in a conversation originally about Trump just because you don’t know how to defend Trump’s actions.

Why would we bring up Hillary to defend Trump's actions? What actions has Trump taken that we should be disappointed for, other than cheap shots through Twitter? Is this where we fabricate to suit?

Here's some fun OP:

I love how i specifically pointed out that democrats in Congress supported the war, but in your desperation you pretended I didn’t just to make a fallacious point.

I did no such thing. Bill Clinton was POTUS, for example. Fact is, the Iraq business began before Bush was POTUS under the Democrats. You ignored my primary point, BTW. What do we have to defend Trump for?

If you don't know then why are you defending him?

 

[Thinker101]

Terrific, you brown-nosed Obama for eight fricken years, brown-nosed Clinton for about a year, and now you want to separate yourself from the Democrat party.

I did neither one of those things.

My mistake, I left out brown-nosing Sanders for about a year.

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

Great, you still need to return your Obamaphone.

I bet you're one of those thinkers who think obama started the so called obama phones.

The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

• The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay
  cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
  
  
  
  
• Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
  
  
  
  • Medicaid;
    
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
    
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
    
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
    
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
    
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
    
  • National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program;
    
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
    
  • Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
    
  • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
    
  • Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
    
  • State assistance programs (if applicable).
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:
  

Yup, the free phones were lifelines only...dumbass.

 

[TheDude]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

Is that right? That explains why liberals:

Men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.
They remain butt-hurt because the media/polls promised Hillary would win.
You're not aborting humans, they're just a fetus.
Effect doesn't require a cause, which is why they're "owed" entitlements.
If you can't defend yourself pull the race card.
Bill Clinton is good, Roy Moore is bad.

It isn’t liberals fault you lack the emotional maturity to respect the rights of gay or transgendered people. You pretend that perverts take advantage of this bathroom controversy when in reality they’ve been using the bathroom of their choice for DECADES - long before republicans started whining about it. In fsct, republican politicians have statistically been involved in bathroom assaults much more often than trans people.

Liberals don’t remain butthurt that Clinton lost. We remain butthurt that you people were retarded enough to vote for a toddler instead.

When do liberals on this board say they are “owed” entitlements? We also don’t defend Bill Clinton. No one cares anymore.

I see. It requires emotional maturity to respect men as women having babies. Makes perfect sense. Neat how "it's Republicans" who initiated the men use the women's bathroom issue.

It's hard to take you seriously when you sport a avatar suggesting you're a critical thinker, while your posts prove to be emotionally driven. All the while you project. Somehow the obvious runs above your head, and that's likely because you're too emotionally vested. Did you happen to see the liberal reaction to Trump's election? You figure Republicans would have that reaction if Clinton won? Give me a break.

Not that I needed the validation, but here you go, and grab a tissue.
Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

This one discusses brain development. Ever wonder why young adults lean liberal? You're in good company "critical thought" guy: Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years

 

[sartre play]

I did neither one of those things.

My mistake, I left out brown-nosing Sanders for about a year.

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

Great, you still need to return your Obamaphone.

I bet you're one of those thinkers who think obama started the so called obama phones.

The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

• The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay
  cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
  
  
  
  
• Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
  
  
  • Medicaid;
    
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
    
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
    
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
    
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
    
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
    
  • National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program;
    
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
    
  • Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
    
  • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
    
  • Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
    
  • State assistance programs (if applicable).
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

Yup, the free phones were lifelines only...dumbass.

This is just the kind of response that Debbie was speaking about. no substance no factual reply, just an insult.

 

[Billy000]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

Is that right? That explains why liberals:

Men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.
They remain butt-hurt because the media/polls promised Hillary would win.
You're not aborting humans, they're just a fetus.
Effect doesn't require a cause, which is why they're "owed" entitlements.
If you can't defend yourself pull the race card.
Bill Clinton is good, Roy Moore is bad.

It isn’t liberals fault you lack the emotional maturity to respect the rights of gay or transgendered people. You pretend that perverts take advantage of this bathroom controversy when in reality they’ve been using the bathroom of their choice for DECADES - long before republicans started whining about it. In fsct, republican politicians have statistically been involved in bathroom assaults much more often than trans people.

Liberals don’t remain butthurt that Clinton lost. We remain butthurt that you people were retarded enough to vote for a toddler instead.

When do liberals on this board say they are “owed” entitlements? We also don’t defend Bill Clinton. No one cares anymore.

I see. It requires emotional maturity to respect men as women having babies. Makes perfect sense. Neat how "it's Republicans" who initiated the men use the women's bathroom issue.

It's hard to take you seriously when you sport a avatar suggesting you're a critical thinker, while your posts prove to be emotionally driven. All the while you project. Somehow the obvious runs above your head, and that's likely because you're too emotionally vested. Did you happen to see the liberal reaction to Trump's election? You figure Republicans would have that reaction if Clinton won? Give me a break.

Not that I needed the validation, but here you go, and grab a tissue.
Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

What those studies point out is that liberals have more empathy on average. However, according to study comparing physical brain differences, conservatives tend to have bigger amygdalas. This part of the brain controls reaction to fear. So as far as formulating political philosophies, liberals tend to be more open to new information that challenges their world view. Conservatives on the other hand, fear change. They don’t allow new information to alter their worldview. What this information comes down to is facts and statistics that manifest into political opinions that reflect them.

New Studies Show Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Brain Structures

 

[ScienceRocks]

I willingly vote democrat because I agree with a lot of what they believe
1. Infrastructure
2. Science investment
3. education
4. a strong safetynet

The republicans believe in the opposite of what I believe and why should I vote against my own interest?

 

[TheDude]

Seems liberals are too emotional to think with clear heads.

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

Is that right? That explains why liberals:

Men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.
They remain butt-hurt because the media/polls promised Hillary would win.
You're not aborting humans, they're just a fetus.
Effect doesn't require a cause, which is why they're "owed" entitlements.
If you can't defend yourself pull the race card.
Bill Clinton is good, Roy Moore is bad.

It isn’t liberals fault you lack the emotional maturity to respect the rights of gay or transgendered people. You pretend that perverts take advantage of this bathroom controversy when in reality they’ve been using the bathroom of their choice for DECADES - long before republicans started whining about it. In fsct, republican politicians have statistically been involved in bathroom assaults much more often than trans people.

Liberals don’t remain butthurt that Clinton lost. We remain butthurt that you people were retarded enough to vote for a toddler instead.

When do liberals on this board say they are “owed” entitlements? We also don’t defend Bill Clinton. No one cares anymore.

I see. It requires emotional maturity to respect men as women having babies. Makes perfect sense. Neat how "it's Republicans" who initiated the men use the women's bathroom issue.

It's hard to take you seriously when you sport a avatar suggesting you're a critical thinker, while your posts prove to be emotionally driven. All the while you project. Somehow the obvious runs above your head, and that's likely because you're too emotionally vested. Did you happen to see the liberal reaction to Trump's election? You figure Republicans would have that reaction if Clinton won? Give me a break.

Not that I needed the validation, but here you go, and grab a tissue.
Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

What those studies point out is that liberals have more empathy on average. However, according to study comparing physical brain differences, conservatives tend to have bigger amygdalas. This part of the brain controls reaction to fear. So as far as formulating political philosophies, liberals tend to be more open to new information that challenges their world view. Conservatives on the other hand, fear change. They don’t allow new information to alter their worldview. What this information comes down to is facts and statistics that manifest into political opinions that reflect them.

New Studies Show Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Brain Structures

If you weren't so emotional you might recognize how your response is baloney.....I added another link showing why you're who you are.

 

[easyt65]

...conservatives set an example of being pawns for republicans. As with anything Bush did, conservatives love anything Trump does regardless of what it is.

That is a false statement; therefore, your entire premise is wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Russian pawns op not Democrat pawns.

A bunch of idiots doing Russia's bidding by undermining our political system.

RUSSIAN PAWNS

 

[Thinker101]

My mistake, I left out brown-nosing Sanders for about a year.

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

Great, you still need to return your Obamaphone.

I bet you're one of those thinkers who think obama started the so called obama phones.

The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

• The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay
  cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
  
  
  
  
• Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
  
  • Medicaid;
    
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
    
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
    
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
    
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
    
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
    
  • National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program;
    
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
    
  • Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
    
  • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
    
  • Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
    
  • State assistance programs (if applicable).
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

Yup, the free phones were lifelines only...dumbass.

This is just the kind of response that Debbie was speaking about. no substance no factual reply, just an insult.

No kidding, are you the official scorekeeper? You may want to follow the conversation...dumbass.

 

[Billy000]

You have that backwards. Liberals think based on facts. Conservatives think based on emotion. Case and point: how many threads do you see created by conservatives contain facts and statistics? Very few.

Is that right? That explains why liberals:

Men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.
They remain butt-hurt because the media/polls promised Hillary would win.
You're not aborting humans, they're just a fetus.
Effect doesn't require a cause, which is why they're "owed" entitlements.
If you can't defend yourself pull the race card.
Bill Clinton is good, Roy Moore is bad.

It isn’t liberals fault you lack the emotional maturity to respect the rights of gay or transgendered people. You pretend that perverts take advantage of this bathroom controversy when in reality they’ve been using the bathroom of their choice for DECADES - long before republicans started whining about it. In fsct, republican politicians have statistically been involved in bathroom assaults much more often than trans people.

Liberals don’t remain butthurt that Clinton lost. We remain butthurt that you people were retarded enough to vote for a toddler instead.

When do liberals on this board say they are “owed” entitlements? We also don’t defend Bill Clinton. No one cares anymore.

I see. It requires emotional maturity to respect men as women having babies. Makes perfect sense. Neat how "it's Republicans" who initiated the men use the women's bathroom issue.

It's hard to take you seriously when you sport a avatar suggesting you're a critical thinker, while your posts prove to be emotionally driven. All the while you project. Somehow the obvious runs above your head, and that's likely because you're too emotionally vested. Did you happen to see the liberal reaction to Trump's election? You figure Republicans would have that reaction if Clinton won? Give me a break.

Not that I needed the validation, but here you go, and grab a tissue.
Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

What those studies point out is that liberals have more empathy on average. However, according to study comparing physical brain differences, conservatives tend to have bigger amygdalas. This part of the brain controls reaction to fear. So as far as formulating political philosophies, liberals tend to be more open to new information that challenges their world view. Conservatives on the other hand, fear change. They don’t allow new information to alter their worldview. What this information comes down to is facts and statistics that manifest into political opinions that reflect them.

New Studies Show Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Brain Structures

If you weren't so emotional you might recognize how your response is baloney.....I added another link showing why you're who you are.

The study reflected everything I said. Go ahead and read it.

 

[debbiedowner]

I did neither one of those things.

My mistake, I left out brown-nosing Sanders for about a year.

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

Great, you still need to return your Obamaphone.

I bet you're one of those thinkers who think obama started the so called obama phones.

The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

• The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay
  cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
  
  
  
  
• Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
  
  
  • Medicaid;
    
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
    
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
    
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
    
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
    
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
    
  • National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program;
    
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
    
  • Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
    
  • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
    
  • Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
    
  • State assistance programs (if applicable).
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

Yup, the free phones were lifelines only...dumbass.

So who started them you fucking idiot?

 

[debbiedowner]

Sanders deserved the brown nosing. He is currently the most popular politician in the country. All that matters is that I didn’t like Hillary.

Great, you still need to return your Obamaphone.

I bet you're one of those thinkers who think obama started the so called obama phones.

The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

• The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay
  cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
  
  
  
  
• Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one of the following federal assistance programs:
  • Medicaid;
    
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP);
    
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
    
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8);
    
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
    
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
    
  • National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program;
    
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
    
  • Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF);
    
  • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
    
  • Head Start (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
    
  • State assistance programs (if applicable).
  
  
  
  
• The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:

Yup, the free phones were lifelines only...dumbass.

This is just the kind of response that Debbie was speaking about. no substance no factual reply, just an insult.

No kidding, are you the official scorekeeper? You may want to follow the conversation...dumbass.

Took alot of thinking to think that up didn't it?