The Lazy Poor

[Truthmatters]

1. Here comes another bursting of your imaginary bubbles!

Ready?

The is no perennial category known as 'the rich.'
It is a momentary snapshot in time.

It is a bête noire created to inflame covetous buffoons such as you.

a. "It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Feel like a fool?
Fitting.


2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Good.



Putting you in your place has become, it seems, my hobby.

No one but you defines 'poor' that way.

So....how do you define poor?

Or, am I correct in that you take your marching orders from the government?

and who is it you take you marching orders from?

glen beck?

 

[Wyatt earp]

That would be indicative of your reading skills.

? you do know reading and comprehension is not the same right?

If you want to defend PC's arguments in this thread, to extent they even exist, by all means do so?

You can start by convincing me that giving free education to poor kids at the expense of other taxpayers is not a redistribution of wealth.

I never said pc was perfect, but I do enjoy where she can get truth matters mad...... lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

As an either/or situation, I'd say that resenting the Rich is far less reprehensible than resenting the Poor.

Your resentment for the Poor is interesting. As an immigrant, is that something you acquired since you arrived here,

thinking it was part of how to be more 'American'?

1. Here comes another bursting of your imaginary bubbles!

Ready?

The is no perennial category known as 'the rich.'
It is a momentary snapshot in time.

It is a bête noire created to inflame covetous buffoons such as you.

a. "It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Feel like a fool?
Fitting.


2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Good.



Putting you in your place has become, it seems, my hobby.

Are you aware that you also are nothing more than a 'snapshot in time'?

Thus by your 'reasoning', that would mean that you do not exist, as you said there are no 'rich'.

Which in a way would answer what is an often asked question around here...

...how can someone that stupid even exist!!???

My turn?


If you still have the fez and the tin cup, maybe you can get your old job with the organ grinder....

 

[Katzndogz]

The poor are also no more than a snapshot in time. They can get off their lazy do-nothing asses any time they want to and go to work which will greatly alleviate their poverty.

 

[Truthmatters]

where ?

 

[Truthmatters]

? you do know reading and comprehension is not the same right?

If you want to defend PC's arguments in this thread, to extent they even exist, by all means do so?

You can start by convincing me that giving free education to poor kids at the expense of other taxpayers is not a redistribution of wealth.

I never said pc was perfect, but I do enjoy where she can get truth matters mad...... lol

yes I get mad when people lie

I get mad when they then claim Jesus is on the side of their lies

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since it appears that the otherwise anti-welfare state anti-socialism conservatives in this thread have unanimously conceded that our socialist educational system is acceptable,

what about healthcare for Americans regardless of their ability to pay?

Can you also accept that a socialist healthcare system is acceptable?

Or would you rather argue that one's health is not as important as one's education, or that one's access to healthcare ought to be directly proportionate to one's income/wealth?

"...anti-welfare..."

Where ever did you get that view?

Oh...your usual?
You simply made it up.


It seems that both you and your girlfriend snip off tiny parts of posts to attempt to prove some fib....


Example: I am a proponent of welfare.

a. To the poor

b. ...and not necessarily carried out by government.

You made up the bumper-sticker, didn't you.
Isn't that the truth?

If you could read you would have seen in the post above I referred to the 'anti-welfare state'.

Since you just said "...welfare... not necessarily carried out by government"

you in fact defined yourself as exactly the kind of person I was referring to.

Now,

try addressing the questions posed above.

Or, answer this:

Is free healthcare given to poor/low income Americans a redistribution of wealth? Should it thus be ended entirely,

since you profess to believe that the government has no business redistributing wealth?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your lies will NEVER be forgotten PC

Y'know....I'm really glad you brought that....

...I was wondering when you'd get around to agreeing with this part:

One more? OK...if all people are good, they would choose only the good to lead them. Doesn't that make sense? Imagine that an elected official had to vote on the following bill:
"If a baby happens to be born healthy, even though the intention of both mother and doctor had been to abort the child......
...let's make certain that swift medical attention is provided."

a. Kinda like what would be done in the case of an auto accident. If there is an injury...'good' folks would see that medical care is provided.....even if the injured party was a bank robber trying to escape....right?

b. But if that official decides not to agree to the procedure, and instead acts in such a way
that the infant is simply set aside to languish until it dies...

c. Is that official proof that people are "good"?

d. And, knowing of the official's view, e.g., that its children need not be "punished" by having to have a baby in the above situation....would any who voted for that official, in your view, be your "good" people?



That one really nailed ya'.....didn't it?

you lied again.


go get the quote of mine wehre I said that you lying sack of shit

Don't be afraid to answer:

If all people are good... they would choose only the good to lead them. Doesn't that make sense? Imagine that an elected official had to vote on the following bill:
"If a baby happens to be born healthy, even though the intention of both mother and doctor had been to abort the child......
...let's make certain that swift medical attention is provided."

a. Kinda like what would be done in the case of an auto accident. If there is an injury...'good' folks would see that medical care is provided.....even if the injured party was a bank robber trying to escape....right?

b. But if that official decides not to agree to the procedure, and instead acts in such a way
that the infant is simply set aside to languish until it dies...

c. Is that official proof that people are "good"?

d. And, knowing of the official's view, e.g., that its children need not be "punished" by having to have a baby in the above situation....would any who voted for that official, in your view, be your "good" people?



C'mon now....the world is hanging on your every word.....


Gotcha, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most people are mostly good.

some are like saints.

some are complete fucking rat bastards like you

I knew I could get you to admit that I was correct.


Now, apologize....and tell the nice people.....'the mostly good people' ...

...that I never said all people are bad.



See, confession is good for the soul.



Next....I'm gonna get you to vote Republican!

 

[NYcarbineer]

? you do know reading and comprehension is not the same right?

If you want to defend PC's arguments in this thread, to extent they even exist, by all means do so?

You can start by convincing me that giving free education to poor kids at the expense of other taxpayers is not a redistribution of wealth.

I never said pc was perfect, but I do enjoy where she can get truth matters mad...... lol

Well, nobody's here to accomplish anything of value, so enjoy what you will.

 

[Truthmatters]

Most people are mostly good.

some are like saints.

some are complete fucking rat bastards like you

I knew I could get you to admit that I was correct.


Now, apologize....and tell the nice people.....'the mostly good people' ...

...that I never said all people are bad.



See, confession is good for the soul.



Next....I'm gonna get you to vote Republican!

more lies about what others say just make you more of a liar

 

[Truthmatters]

Y'know....I'm really glad you brought that....

...I was wondering when you'd get around to agreeing with this part:

One more? OK...if all people are good, they would choose only the good to lead them. Doesn't that make sense? Imagine that an elected official had to vote on the following bill:
"If a baby happens to be born healthy, even though the intention of both mother and doctor had been to abort the child......
...let's make certain that swift medical attention is provided."

a. Kinda like what would be done in the case of an auto accident. If there is an injury...'good' folks would see that medical care is provided.....even if the injured party was a bank robber trying to escape....right?

b. But if that official decides not to agree to the procedure, and instead acts in such a way
that the infant is simply set aside to languish until it dies...

c. Is that official proof that people are "good"?

d. And, knowing of the official's view, e.g., that its children need not be "punished" by having to have a baby in the above situation....would any who voted for that official, in your view, be your "good" people?



That one really nailed ya'.....didn't it?

you lied again.


go get the quote of mine wehre I said that you lying sack of shit

Don't be afraid to answer:

If all people are good... they would choose only the good to lead them. Doesn't that make sense? Imagine that an elected official had to vote on the following bill:
"If a baby happens to be born healthy, even though the intention of both mother and doctor had been to abort the child......
...let's make certain that swift medical attention is provided."

a. Kinda like what would be done in the case of an auto accident. If there is an injury...'good' folks would see that medical care is provided.....even if the injured party was a bank robber trying to escape....right?

b. But if that official decides not to agree to the procedure, and instead acts in such a way
that the infant is simply set aside to languish until it dies...

c. Is that official proof that people are "good"?

d. And, knowing of the official's view, e.g., that its children need not be "punished" by having to have a baby in the above situation....would any who voted for that official, in your view, be your "good" people?



C'mon now....the world is hanging on your every word.....


Gotcha, huh?

Go get the quote of mine saying all people are "good" like you are claiming I said

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

One person's rocks is another person's diamonds.

Nope diamonds are diamonds.


other rocks are not diamonds.

only a liar cant tell the differance

Now, now...don't be upset....

This isn't the first argument you've lost.


Here are the two things you must remember:
Never doubt my veracity again, and Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night!

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you want to defend PC's arguments in this thread, to extent they even exist, by all means do so?

You can start by convincing me that giving free education to poor kids at the expense of other taxpayers is not a redistribution of wealth.

I never said pc was perfect, but I do enjoy where she can get truth matters mad...... lol

yes I get mad when people lie

I get mad when they then claim Jesus is on the side of their lies

but girl you have to be more clever then that. when you get upset your just showing your weak.

 

[Truthmatters]

see gentle readers the right is packed with people like this.

willing to lie right straight into the face of facts.


she claims I said something I did not say.


i proved she said that people are NOT GOOD.

she then lies about me and refuses to offer any proof that she is telling the truth.

becuase she is not telling the truth.

how christainy of her huh

 

[PoliticalChic]

The lazy poor are the one poverty group for which a central government must facilitate welfare services through guilt and manipulation of the rest of the populace. This is because taxpayers generally despise this poverty group because, no matter how expensive the welfare programs are, the lazy poor always want more. They depend on the pity of liberal politicians to redistribute wealth, so that they can get what they want with little effort and no personal responsibility.

These are the "I couldn't care less" poor, the 'refuse to work' poor, and those poor who claim welfare benefits as their 'entitlement.' Some politicians believe they are doing these folks a favor by addicting them to a government-subsidized life. These are people who will be forever impoverished: they have bought the lie that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, and, therefore, they can demand that Uncle Sam fuels, or at least feels, their pain.

The OP is truly a reprehensible individual, whether her ignorance and hate is willful or not.

This is the best you can do????


The quote is from a successful young lady who has explained that she was once 'the lazy poor'....


...and you thought it was my quote?????


You are truly a dunce, C_Chamber_Pot.....


Next time, have someone explain to you what you are reading.

Dismissed.

 

[Truthmatters]

One person's rocks is another person's diamonds.

Nope diamonds are diamonds.


other rocks are not diamonds.

only a liar cant tell the differance

Now, now...don't be upset....

This isn't the first argument you've lost.


Here are the two things you must remember:
Never doubt my veracity again, and Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night!

fuck you all the way to hell


you are one of the shittiest christains I have ever talked to

 

[Truthmatters]

PC produce the quote from me that you claim exists.



you cant produce it because I never said it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one but you defines 'poor' that way.

So....how do you define poor?

Or, am I correct in that you take your marching orders from the government?

and who is it you take you marching orders from?

glen beck?

Can you find that definition in Mr. Beck's work?

 

[Truthmatters]

produce the quote from me you claim exists