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.
Again, no one said this. Link to an actual "top democrat" saying anything remotely close to this. I don't want to see another opinion piece of some conservative interpreting what democrats are saying.
Pelosi was just saying this the other day in an interview. But I suppose since your head was in the sand and you didn't hear it, it never happened right?
Why is it that the left is always oblivious to current events and has to ask for links.
Why is it you people can never support anything you say?
I really do have some nerve asking for proof of the bullshit you claim. What's the matter with me??
They want everyone to work for the state
Weird, considering that the number of Federal Employees is nearing a 50 year low.
'In September, before the government shutdown, the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent. '
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
How can you make statements like this Frank when you can't support them with actual fact?
Oh that's right, facts and reality don't matter to you people.
TacosMany many Americans are strugling to make ends meet and in fact millions still can't find sustainable employment. Yet here come the democrats celebrating the fact that work isn't that important.
I refuse to believe that most Americans would rather live a subsidized life than to persue their own dreams.
I believe the sudden belief by democrats that work is a ball and chain is their irrational defense of obamacare and the fact that they now realize it is killing jobs. So rather than rectify the problem they rationalize that work isn't really that important.
Are dems digging themselves a hole that will take decades to recover from or has American become so complacent that this will be excused?
Of course it's a troll thread. You said "Yet here come the democrats celebrating the fact that work isn't that important. "
Which is a ridiculous statement. Only a troll would make such a statement. It's fine to give an opinion but to act like Democrats wish for and cheer people being unemployed is something only an idiot/troll would state in seriousness.
I already admitted that celebrate was the wrong adjective numbskull. But listening to top democrats in congress applaud the fact that less work is good speaks volumes.
Again, no one said this. Link to an actual "top democrat" saying anything remotely close to this. I don't want to see another opinion piece of some conservative interpreting what democrats are saying.
Pelosi was just saying this the other day in an interview. But I suppose since your head was in the sand and you didn't hear it, it never happened right?
Why is it that the left is always oblivious to current events and has to ask for links.
Why is it you people can never support anything you say?
I really do have some nerve asking for proof of the bullshit you claim. What's the matter with me??
Who the fuck is "you people"?
Nothing wrong with asking but I have no clue where to look for links to a tv news interview I saw. Perhaps if you looked further than your limited partisan sites or channels you wouldn't be so oblivious to current events.
They want everyone to work for the state
Weird, considering that the number of Federal Employees is nearing a 50 year low.
'In September, before the government shutdown, the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent. '
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
How can you make statements like this Frank when you can't support them with actual fact?
Oh that's right, facts and reality don't matter to you people.
Talk about on pathetic individual, do you have any concept of the definition of "want"?
want
[wont, wawnt]
verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.
Want | Define Want at Dictionary.com
Here's a big clue, if you "want", you don't already "have", do you need the definition for "have" also?
I think you owe somebody an apology.
Cons would never admit to being wrong, even when proved to be so. They consider it a sign of weakness. Being a moron is preferable.So you admit this is a troll thread. Thanks.
I admit nothing. This thread contains a message and opinion that YOU don't like so rather than offer evidence to sway opinions you attack.
Having said that "celebrate" may have been the wrong adjective but the bottom line remains the same.
I already admitted that celebrate was the wrong adjective numbskull. But listening to top democrats in congress applaud the fact that less work is good speaks volumes.
Again, no one said this. Link to an actual "top democrat" saying anything remotely close to this. I don't want to see another opinion piece of some conservative interpreting what democrats are saying.
Would a white house quote count?
"But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance."
Associated Press
Again, no one said this. Link to an actual "top democrat" saying anything remotely close to this. I don't want to see another opinion piece of some conservative interpreting what democrats are saying.
Would a white house quote count?
"But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance."
Associated Press
How does what you quoted remotely support the ridiculous OP?
Would a white house quote count?
"But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance."
Associated Press
How does what you quoted remotely support the ridiculous OP?
How does your trolling support your argument?
Weird, considering that the number of Federal Employees is nearing a 50 year low.
'In September, before the government shutdown, the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent. '
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
How can you make statements like this Frank when you can't support them with actual fact?
Oh that's right, facts and reality don't matter to you people.
Talk about on pathetic individual, do you have any concept of the definition of "want"?
want
[wont, wawnt]
verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.
Want | Define Want at Dictionary.com
Here's a big clue, if you "want", you don't already "have", do you need the definition for "have" also?
I think you owe somebody an apology.
So Obama wants something but does the opposite? In what world does that make sense?
You owe common sense an apology.
Talk about on pathetic individual, do you have any concept of the definition of "want"?
want
[wont, wawnt]
verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.
Want | Define Want at Dictionary.com
Here's a big clue, if you "want", you don't already "have", do you need the definition for "have" also?
I think you owe somebody an apology.
So Obama wants something but does the opposite? In what world does that make sense?
You owe common sense an apology.
Circumstances sometimes stand in the way of things we want , isn't that why people like you call republicans obstructionist? Just imagine all the commiecrats and your mulatto messiah could have done absent that obstruction.
No, it is you who has taken leave of common sense, ain't it a bitch trying to keep all you lies straight?
Many many Americans are strugling to make ends meet and in fact millions still can't find sustainable employment. Yet here come the democrats celebrating the fact that work isn't that important.
I refuse to believe that most Americans would rather live a subsidized life than to persue their own dreams.
I believe the sudden belief by democrats that work is a ball and chain is their irrational defense of obamacare and the fact that they now realize it is killing jobs. So rather than rectify the problem they rationalize that work isn't really that important.
Are dems digging themselves a hole that will take decades to recover from or has American become so complacent that this will be excused?
TDM have you EVER actually posted ON topic?
Again, no one said this. Link to an actual "top democrat" saying anything remotely close to this. I don't want to see another opinion piece of some conservative interpreting what democrats are saying.
Would a white house quote count?
"But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance."
Associated Press
How does what you quoted remotely support the ridiculous OP?
So Obama wants something but does the opposite? In what world does that make sense?
You owe common sense an apology.
Circumstances sometimes stand in the way of things we want , isn't that why people like you call republicans obstructionist? Just imagine all the commiecrats and your mulatto messiah could have done absent that obstruction.
No, it is you who has taken leave of common sense, ain't it a bitch trying to keep all you lies straight?
The amount of twisting you do to try and justify the fact that your warped opinion doesn't line up with reality is truly breath taking.
Would a white house quote count?
"But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance."
Associated Press
How does what you quoted remotely support the ridiculous OP?
You commies have highlighted the statement in blue, and your celebration that workers having this so called "freedom" show a total disregard for the poor folks that have to pay the bills. Is subsidized freedom really freedom, or just another form of slavery?
Circumstances sometimes stand in the way of things we want , isn't that why people like you call republicans obstructionist? Just imagine all the commiecrats and your mulatto messiah could have done absent that obstruction.
No, it is you who has taken leave of common sense, ain't it a bitch trying to keep all you lies straight?
The amount of twisting you do to try and justify the fact that your warped opinion doesn't line up with reality is truly breath taking.
And yet, you have provided nothing to prove what your dear leader really wants, just what he happens to have. Twist, twist, twist.
How does what you quoted remotely support the ridiculous OP?
You commies have highlighted the statement in blue, and your celebration that workers having this so called "freedom" show a total disregard for the poor folks that have to pay the bills. Is subsidized freedom really freedom, or just another form of slavery?
WTF. Seriously.
How can people being able to purchase health insurance on their own without having to get it through an employer possibly be a bad thing? You're a fucking psychopath. You haven't the slightest clue. If people start deriving their insurance elsewhere, the employers will simply stop providing it. Guess what that does to those who have existing coverage?
So, how is this enabling at all?
You obviously have zero clue what the statement you quoted is even saying. You aren't even in the same ballpark.
You commies have highlighted the statement in blue, and your celebration that workers having this so called "freedom" show a total disregard for the poor folks that have to pay the bills. Is subsidized freedom really freedom, or just another form of slavery?
WTF. Seriously.
How can people being able to purchase health insurance on their own without having to get it through an employer possibly be a bad thing? You're a fucking psychopath. You haven't the slightest clue. If people start deriving their insurance elsewhere, the employers will simply stop providing it. Guess what that does to those who have existing coverage?
So, how is this enabling at all?
You obviously have zero clue what the statement you quoted is even saying. You aren't even in the same ballpark.
Whaaat?!
Why should people be enabled to buy insurance when they already had insurance?
