Secession Movement Beginning In Maryland

[S.J.]

It's pretty clear that you don't like it when you're called out on your blanket statements.
Maybe you should stop making stuff up and actually write things that you can back up with facts, then you wouldn't get so easily backed into a corner and have to run and hide.

Or not...it's up to you after all.
Perhaps you like corners and exercise - I dunno.

I think it's safe to say that most people on welfare will vote for politicians who promise to keep funding their laziness, and those politicians are almost exclusively Democrats. And my unwillingness to engage in your type of game playing should not be seen as being backed into a corner. Like I said, I'm happy to debate if you're willing to do it on an adult level, but when you imply that I'm saying "no conservatives collect welfare", that's nothing more than a distraction. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue, it's a self-determination and freedom issue.

Fair enough but I have to ask...if it isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue then what's with all the name-calling (libtards) and lazy partisan generalisations based on political leanings (libtards getting a free ride, politicians that fund lazy people on welfare are almost exclusively Democrats)?
If you don't like straight-line implications being drawn from your position then try cutting out the partisan general statements.

I would be disingenuous if I said Republicans favor wealth distribution through welfare as much as Democrats do, and you would be too. Let's be honest, ok? Democrats use welfare to buy the black vote (and the Hispanic vote). The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the people who produce wealth (where else?). As more people (liberal of conservative) get on welfare, the number of people funding it shrinks, and their burden increases accordingly. These are people who DIDN'T vote for Obama, and to pretend that they are is laughable. They are no more going to vote for him than the freeloaders who would never vote Republican for fear of losing their benefits. I CAN generalize because it's ridiculous to think that the welfare queen swiping her EBT card is a Republican.

 

[squeeze berry]

this ^ is the type of bigotry that the northern and western Maryland counties are fed up with

 

[idb]

I think it's safe to say that most people on welfare will vote for politicians who promise to keep funding their laziness, and those politicians are almost exclusively Democrats. And my unwillingness to engage in your type of game playing should not be seen as being backed into a corner. Like I said, I'm happy to debate if you're willing to do it on an adult level, but when you imply that I'm saying "no conservatives collect welfare", that's nothing more than a distraction. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue, it's a self-determination and freedom issue.

Fair enough but I have to ask...if it isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue then what's with all the name-calling (libtards) and lazy partisan generalisations based on political leanings (libtards getting a free ride, politicians that fund lazy people on welfare are almost exclusively Democrats)?
If you don't like straight-line implications being drawn from your position then try cutting out the partisan general statements.

I would be disingenuous if I said Republicans favor wealth distribution through welfare as much as Democrats do, and you would be too. Let's be honest, ok? Democrats use welfare to buy the black vote (and the Hispanic vote). The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the people who produce wealth (where else?). As more people (liberal of conservative) get on welfare, the number of people funding it shrinks, and their burden increases accordingly. These are people who DIDN'T vote for Obama, and to pretend that they are is laughable. They are no more going to vote for him than the freeloaders who would never vote Republican for fear of losing their benefits. I CAN generalize because it's ridiculous to think that the welfare queen swiping her EBT card is a Republican.

Fair enough, the Democratic position is less individualistic and sees the State as an agent to benefit people.
Republicans generally disagree.

If Democrats already favour wealth distribution through welfare, then they can't be accused of buying the black and Hispanic vote through welfare...because welfare is apparently a core belief anyway whether people vote for them or not.
In any case, is it true that welfare is more important to blacks and Hispanics than other groups?
What about liberal whites?
What about non-liberal whites - especially those on welfare?

Despite the rhetoric from right-wing commentators, both sides want to get people off welfare, they just disagree how to do it.

If you want to generalise about beneficiaries being free-loaders and Democrat voters, I wonder which way Paul Ryan votes...after all he received welfare when he was younger.
Or is it that he doesn't need welfare anymore so he's free to vote Republican?

 

[squeeze berry]

Buncha cranky-ass crybabies.

they should be pissed. The western counties and northern counties of Garrett, Allganey Washington,Carroll and Frederick have been treated with an air of dismissiveness and bigotry by the large population areas.

I never never lived there, but have lived in close proximity for most of my life. You?

 

[S.J.]

Fair enough but I have to ask...if it isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue then what's with all the name-calling (libtards) and lazy partisan generalisations based on political leanings (libtards getting a free ride, politicians that fund lazy people on welfare are almost exclusively Democrats)?
If you don't like straight-line implications being drawn from your position then try cutting out the partisan general statements.

I would be disingenuous if I said Republicans favor wealth distribution through welfare as much as Democrats do, and you would be too. Let's be honest, ok? Democrats use welfare to buy the black vote (and the Hispanic vote). The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the people who produce wealth (where else?). As more people (liberal of conservative) get on welfare, the number of people funding it shrinks, and their burden increases accordingly. These are people who DIDN'T vote for Obama, and to pretend that they are is laughable. They are no more going to vote for him than the freeloaders who would never vote Republican for fear of losing their benefits. I CAN generalize because it's ridiculous to think that the welfare queen swiping her EBT card is a Republican.

Fair enough, the Democratic position is less individualistic and sees the State as an agent to benefit people.
Republicans generally disagree.

If Democrats already favour wealth distribution through welfare, then they can't be accused of buying the black and Hispanic vote through welfare...because welfare is apparently a core belief anyway whether people vote for them or not.
In any case, is it true that welfare is more important to blacks and Hispanics than other groups?
What about liberal whites?
What about non-liberal whites - especially those on welfare?

Despite the rhetoric from right-wing commentators, both sides want to get people off welfare, they just disagree how to do it.

If you want to generalise about beneficiaries being free-loaders and Democrat voters, I wonder which way Paul Ryan votes...after all he received welfare when he was younger.
Or is it that he doesn't need welfare anymore so he's free to vote Republican?

I disagree that Democrats want to get people off of welfare, especially Obama. I mean, I saw a commercial a few days ago encouraging people to apply for benefits. And his record speaks for itself, he IS the food stamp president. What better way to keep people voting for you than to pay for their food with somebody else's money?

 

[idb]

I would be disingenuous if I said Republicans favor wealth distribution through welfare as much as Democrats do, and you would be too. Let's be honest, ok? Democrats use welfare to buy the black vote (and the Hispanic vote). The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the people who produce wealth (where else?). As more people (liberal of conservative) get on welfare, the number of people funding it shrinks, and their burden increases accordingly. These are people who DIDN'T vote for Obama, and to pretend that they are is laughable. They are no more going to vote for him than the freeloaders who would never vote Republican for fear of losing their benefits. I CAN generalize because it's ridiculous to think that the welfare queen swiping her EBT card is a Republican.

Fair enough, the Democratic position is less individualistic and sees the State as an agent to benefit people.
Republicans generally disagree.

If Democrats already favour wealth distribution through welfare, then they can't be accused of buying the black and Hispanic vote through welfare...because welfare is apparently a core belief anyway whether people vote for them or not.
In any case, is it true that welfare is more important to blacks and Hispanics than other groups?
What about liberal whites?
What about non-liberal whites - especially those on welfare?

Despite the rhetoric from right-wing commentators, both sides want to get people off welfare, they just disagree how to do it.

If you want to generalise about beneficiaries being free-loaders and Democrat voters, I wonder which way Paul Ryan votes...after all he received welfare when he was younger.
Or is it that he doesn't need welfare anymore so he's free to vote Republican?

I disagree that Democrats want to get people off of welfare, especially Obama. I mean, I saw a commercial a few days ago encouraging people to apply for benefits. And his record speaks for itself, he IS the food stamp president. What better way to keep people voting for you than to pay for their food with somebody else's money?

Informing people of the assistance available to them if they and their families need it isn't the same as wanting to keep people on welfare.

 

[S.J.]

Buncha cranky-ass crybabies.

they should be pissed. The western counties and northern counties of Garrett, Allganey Washington,Carroll and Frederick have been treated with an air of dismissiveness and bigotry by the large population areas.

I never never lived there, but have lived in close proximity for most of my life. You?

I lived in P.G. county from 1963 to 1980. When I visited there a few years ago it had deteriorated considerably. Trash along the streets, holes in car trunks where the locks used to be, broken windows everywhere.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Buncha cranky-ass crybabies.

they should be pissed. The western counties and northern counties of Garrett, Allganey Washington,Carroll and Frederick have been treated with an air of dismissiveness and bigotry by the large population areas.

I never never lived there, but have lived in close proximity for most of my life. You?

I lived in P.G. county from 1963 to 1980. When I visited there a few years ago it had deteriorated considerably. Trash along the streets, holes in car trunks where the locks used to be, broken windows everywhere.

Kinda reminds you a bit of Detroit doesn't it?

 

[S.J.]

Fair enough, the Democratic position is less individualistic and sees the State as an agent to benefit people.
Republicans generally disagree.

If Democrats already favour wealth distribution through welfare, then they can't be accused of buying the black and Hispanic vote through welfare...because welfare is apparently a core belief anyway whether people vote for them or not.
In any case, is it true that welfare is more important to blacks and Hispanics than other groups?
What about liberal whites?
What about non-liberal whites - especially those on welfare?

Despite the rhetoric from right-wing commentators, both sides want to get people off welfare, they just disagree how to do it.

If you want to generalise about beneficiaries being free-loaders and Democrat voters, I wonder which way Paul Ryan votes...after all he received welfare when he was younger.
Or is it that he doesn't need welfare anymore so he's free to vote Republican?

I disagree that Democrats want to get people off of welfare, especially Obama. I mean, I saw a commercial a few days ago encouraging people to apply for benefits. And his record speaks for itself, he IS the food stamp president. What better way to keep people voting for you than to pay for their food with somebody else's money?

Informing people of the assistance available to them if they and their families need it isn't the same as wanting to keep people on welfare.

I think you're putting lipstick on a pig there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1nv8G6UFfc]Food Stamp Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[S.J.]

they should be pissed. The western counties and northern counties of Garrett, Allganey Washington,Carroll and Frederick have been treated with an air of dismissiveness and bigotry by the large population areas.

I never never lived there, but have lived in close proximity for most of my life. You?

I lived in P.G. county from 1963 to 1980. When I visited there a few years ago it had deteriorated considerably. Trash along the streets, holes in car trunks where the locks used to be, broken windows everywhere.

Kinda reminds you a bit of Detroit doesn't it?

Yep. It used to just look like that in D.C., then they started forced busing and subsidized housing and within a few years Md. looked like D.C. Liberal social engineering.

 

[bripat9643]

I lived in P.G. county from 1963 to 1980. When I visited there a few years ago it had deteriorated considerably. Trash along the streets, holes in car trunks where the locks used to be, broken windows everywhere.

Kinda reminds you a bit of Detroit doesn't it?

Yep. It used to just look like that in D.C., then they started forced busing and subsidized housing and within a few years Md. looked like D.C. Liberal social engineering.

Baltimore is the biggest shithole I've ever seen in my life. Aside from a few block radius near the inner harbor, the entire city is one vast slum. There are boarded up buildings and graffiti everywhere. For a year I lived in an area on the South side of this area, just inside the combat zone, and I was robbed seven times.

 

[KissMy]

Most Maryland residents get their money directly or indirectly from the federal government. Their pay & housing prices went up during the federal stimulus while the rest of the country sank unless they had oil wells.

 

[S.J.]

Kinda reminds you a bit of Detroit doesn't it?

Yep. It used to just look like that in D.C., then they started forced busing and subsidized housing and within a few years Md. looked like D.C. Liberal social engineering.

Baltimore is the biggest shithole I've ever seen in my life. Aside from a few block radius near the inner harbor, the entire city is one vast slum. There are boarded up buildings and graffiti everywhere. For a year I lived in an area on the South side of this area, just inside the combat zone, and I was robbed seven times.

I believe it, and I'll bet I can describe the thugs too. I've been there a few times. Went to an Aerosmith concert at the Civic Center. The security guards were starting fights with the white people trying to buy tickets. They felt brave with their clubs and mace.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Maybe these folks could re-direct their passion and effort into changing hearts and minds with reason and clarity.

Maybe that would work a little better for them.

.

 

[squeeze berry]

.

Maybe these folks could re-direct their passion and effort into changing hearts and minds with reason and clarity.

Maybe that would work a little better for them.

.

good luck with that.

The rest of the state considers them a non-entity.

hicks ,rednecks,crackers

Realistically there will be no secession, but they would get a better deal if they joined WV

 

[aaronleland]

.

Maybe these folks could re-direct their passion and effort into changing hearts and minds with reason and clarity.

Maybe that would work a little better for them.

.

good luck with that.

The rest of the state considers them a non-entity.

hicks ,rednecks,crackers

Realistically there will be no secession, but they would get a better deal if they joined WV

What makes you think they would be any more welcome in the one state to separate from the South during the Civil War?

 

[squeeze berry]

Yep. It used to just look like that in D.C., then they started forced busing and subsidized housing and within a few years Md. looked like D.C. Liberal social engineering.

Baltimore is the biggest shithole I've ever seen in my life. Aside from a few block radius near the inner harbor, the entire city is one vast slum. There are boarded up buildings and graffiti everywhere. For a year I lived in an area on the South side of this area, just inside the combat zone, and I was robbed seven times.

I believe it, and I'll bet I can describe the thugs too. I've been there a few times. Went to an Aerosmith concert at the Civic Center. The security guards were starting fights with the white people trying to buy tickets. They felt brave with their clubs and mace.

years back a group of us went to the preakness. We had to park far away from the horse track and walk in.
The neighborhood can be described as a mainly minority neighborhood, if you get my drift.

The local residents were out in force to heckle and harass us. THEY WERE ALL ARMED WITH AT LEAST A CLAW HAMMER. It was like running a gauntlet.
We walked back to the vehicles a different way.

You will not experience that hatred in Frederick , Cumberland, Westminster or Hagerstown.

 

[squeeze berry]

.

Maybe these folks could re-direct their passion and effort into changing hearts and minds with reason and clarity.

Maybe that would work a little better for them.

.

good luck with that.

The rest of the state considers them a non-entity.

hicks ,rednecks,crackers

Realistically there will be no secession, but they would get a better deal if they joined WV

What makes you think they would be any more welcome in the one state to separate from the South during the Civil War?

because they are similar to West Virginians you fucking bigot

ps still fighting the war I see

 

[Old Rocks]

I think we should simply resend the statehood of the "blue states". Let them sponge off each other for awhile. Except for Ca. which we should give to Mexico.

Another really stupid poster. It is the red states that are the welfare states, sponging off of the blue states.

PolitiFact | 'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars

 

[007]

.

Maybe these folks could re-direct their passion and effort into changing hearts and minds with reason and clarity.

Maybe that would work a little better for them.

.

You mean like people do here?