Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[francoHFW]

Way to justify being cruel to the least fortunate among us. You sound like an average 'Good Christian' Republican wanker. Jesus is not proud of you my friend.

And when did Jesus put you in charge of making those calls for him????

Y'all 'Good American'/Good Christian' Republicans really should go back and read Jesus' teachings again. You clearly didn't get it. Till you get right with Jesus again, you're just gonna be frauds playing the role of the 'Good American/Good Christian.'

For most of my childhood, I was raised in an all Catholic school. I was even an alter boy.

Jesus never taught that government should forcefully take from people to give to anybody. Jesus taught that you should give of yourself through your own free will. According to Jesus, charity is an individual thing--not a government thing. Jesus didn't get along with the government very well back in his time.

Taking a persons property against their will is called theft, and theft is in God's top ten no-no's in life. Stealing property from people is just wrong no matter what you use the seized property for.

Seriously, go back and read Jesus' teachings again. You've lost your way. You've allowed hate & greed to consume you. You let the Devil in.

I suggest you do the same. In fact, when you do go back to reread it, show me the part where Jesus stated government should confiscate wealth forcefully from people to give to the poor.

I'll be waiting right here.

Something about paying to Caesar what is Caesar's- and of course you know about all the Roman aid to the poor. Don't you, ignoramus?

 

[francoHFW]

Bush did not meet with his antiterrorism experts till AFTER 9-11
He did nothing to protect us from an attack

He didn't have a clue about the attack. Even if he did, WTF was he supposed to do about it? Close down all the airports across the country? He had no more way of knowing about 911 than Clinton did about the OKC bombing. But of course because Clinton could do no wrong, you'd never try to place any blame on him for the bombing.

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

 

[francoHFW]

Where'd he go lol?

 

[Skull Pilot]

for someone with a Masters you are very bad at conveying thoughts via written speech
it's because you have no thoughts all you have are the talking points that have been spoon fed to you

Nah. I can also do that in fluent French and to a lesser extent Spanish. I blame my lack of typing skill and interest. Much info in few words, yes. "a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have."

no info

all you have are the talking points you have been spoon fed

Check the sig any time- more info than you get on the GOP propaganda machine in years...

don't need to you post the same drivel over an over again anyway

like I said you have no thoughts of your own so all you do is parrot

These are FACTS I personally put together for my book, dupe. It's too bad we Libs don't have a propaganda machine to organize our propaganda for us like you dupes have- AND overwhelm the internet with our drivel so dupes believe the crap.

what book?

the one that will never be published because no one wants to read your uninspired talking points listed over and over again?

 

[Skull Pilot]

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Why do you think diabetes is an epidemic, esp. in black areas? DUH.

because the fat people CHOOSE to eat like crap

 

[Skull Pilot]

You conflated "control people for their own good" with "laws against murder".

Oh really. So why do we have a law against murder? Why not go Discworld and make it okay as long as you're in a guild or something?

Why is making a law against murder not about controlling people for their own good?

It's about preventing people from doing harm to other people. That's controlling people for the good of others, not for their own good.

Controlling them for their own good assumes that they're too stupid to make good decisions for themselves and need a nanny state to take care of them. Ultimately, why do you think ANYONE has/ should have the authority to make those decisions for other people?

Well surely controlling them for the good of others assumes they're too stupid to realize that someone doesn't want to be murdered and that they need the nanny state to tell them not to murder, or some religion to tell them.

The problem we have here is that we're not talking about telling people what they can and can't do. We're simply stating that healthy things have less tax on them than things that are not so healthy so that people can make a choice. You know, I could murder or I could not murder... hmm... well I might go to prison or be executed if I murder, so I'm not going to do it. I could buy a snickers or I could buy a salad, both are okay, however the snickers is cheaper, I'll take that as I don't have much money, oh, wait, the salad is now cheaper, maybe i'll go for that.

Tax policy as social engineering.

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

so just because it's used it's alright with you?

And it's not abut what you want. People have the right to choose what they want and what anyone wants is none of your of the government's business

 

[Skull Pilot]

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

The problem here is that people CAN do things cheaper, but they need to be EDUCATED in how to do things, this is becoming a cycle of you compartmentalizing things and then dismissing them all, but then finding out that what you said shouldn't happen is what should happen to deal with the next thing.

you don't have to educate people about what they already know

you want to get educated on food prices then get your ass to the supermarket and look around

you don't need some government program for that

Well, you're wrong.

Firstly, what "people know" is usually full of mistruths, things that are plain wrong, assumptions and the like. Secondly what they know will be on the basic level, and not on a detailed level, and sometimes this isn't enough to encourage people to do something about it.

I've changed my eating habits lately because I've found stuff out that disturbs me. I know sugar is bad for me, but I ate it anyway. Why? Because I could get away with it. What I wasn't considering was the sugar not only makes people fat, it causes other problems that I did not know about, and for that reason and other issues involving diabetes because a family member was told they'd get diabetes and they didn't get it because they went on a strict diet, when their father had got diabetes.

You're trying to make this issue as simple as possible. It's not just about food prices. Hence why education is needed. No doubt you could learn a lot, you just haven't.

So here's for some education.

Sugar and what it does to your brain.

It leads to hyperactivity.
It leads to yeast growth, things like eczema, throat infections and ear infections. So if you have these problems it could potentially be because of too much sugar.
It hinders the absorption of vitamin B into your body. Vitamin B helps regulate your blood sugar levels. It also reduces the amount of oxygen going to the brain and it increase adrenaline in your body. The impact of these are forgetfulness, mood swings and other negative issues.

I had a look at McDonald's food calculator and a medium sized milkshake has 200% the daily recommended value for sugar for a 7-10 year old. A Big Mac has 33%. You go take kids on a trip to McDonalds and you could be giving them a massive dose of sugar 300% or more of their daily recommended value for just one meal. Then add that to the other two meals and snacks in a day and you might be looking at 600% daily recommended value. Imagine what this does to a kid's education. They're going to suffer at school, not meet their potential. You see all these kids that are overweight.

Childhood Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

36.5% of American adults are overweight. Probably a large portion of these take too much sugar in their daily lives.
12.7 million children are obese.

"The prevalence of obesity among children aged 2 to 5 years decreased significantly from 13.9% in 2003-2004 to 9.4% in 2013-2014."

The rate is lowering. However it's not surprising that the highest rates of obesity are in the places with the worst education

you have no idea what I know about nutrition and what I have learned I learned without some government program to tell me.

everyone already knows what's healthy and what's not. Even you admitted that. So wasting money telling people what to eat is not going to change anything

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He didn't have a clue about the attack. Even if he did, WTF was he supposed to do about it? Close down all the airports across the country? He had no more way of knowing about 911 than Clinton did about the OKC bombing. But of course because Clinton could do no wrong, you'd never try to place any blame on him for the bombing.

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

Idiot. No direct link between 911 and what Bush knew about any possible attack. Could have, should have, might have...........but no concrete plans about 911. There were dozens if not hundreds of theories of terrorists possibly attacking this country, but nobody had a clue that 911 was ever going to happen and nothing could have been done about it anyway.

And yeah, I went to bed because unlike you welfare queens, I have to get up for work in the morning to support your worthless asses.

 

[hadit]

You conflated "control people for their own good" with "laws against murder".

Oh really. So why do we have a law against murder? Why not go Discworld and make it okay as long as you're in a guild or something?

Why is making a law against murder not about controlling people for their own good?

It's about preventing people from doing harm to other people. That's controlling people for the good of others, not for their own good.

Controlling them for their own good assumes that they're too stupid to make good decisions for themselves and need a nanny state to take care of them. Ultimately, why do you think ANYONE has/ should have the authority to make those decisions for other people?

Well surely controlling them for the good of others assumes they're too stupid to realize that someone doesn't want to be murdered and that they need the nanny state to tell them not to murder, or some religion to tell them.

The problem we have here is that we're not talking about telling people what they can and can't do. We're simply stating that healthy things have less tax on them than things that are not so healthy so that people can make a choice. You know, I could murder or I could not murder... hmm... well I might go to prison or be executed if I murder, so I'm not going to do it. I could buy a snickers or I could buy a salad, both are okay, however the snickers is cheaper, I'll take that as I don't have much money, oh, wait, the salad is now cheaper, maybe i'll go for that.

Tax policy as social engineering.

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

Because power grabs never stop. In this case, all you want to do is incentivize people to make healthier food choices. That in itself is a laudable goal, but it won't stop there. You put in place your tax scheme and guess what happens next? Someone is going to think that people are still eating too much junk food and incentives are not enough, so they pass laws making it illegal to buy more than a certain amount of junk food (think NYC ban on large drink containers). And it goes from there. There is never a shortage of meddlers who think they know what's good for you more than you do.

 

[hadit]

He didn't have a clue about the attack. Even if he did, WTF was he supposed to do about it? Close down all the airports across the country? He had no more way of knowing about 911 than Clinton did about the OKC bombing. But of course because Clinton could do no wrong, you'd never try to place any blame on him for the bombing.

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

You do realize, don't you, that Bubba was president when that book came out, and failed to take steps to prevent 911? So why is his dereliction of duty less egregious than anyone else's, because, you know, they all knew, and stuff?

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone can plan from anywhere in the world. You or I can "make a plan" with nothing happening
The execution of the plan occurred while Bush was President. The hijackings occurred while Bush was President. The attacks occurred while Bush was President....Bush did not protect us

Clinton warned Bush of the threat of terrorism....Bush shrugged it off

YOU LIE!

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

Bush did not meet with his antiterrorism experts till AFTER 9-11
He did nothing to protect us from an attack

He didn't have a clue about the attack. Even if he did, WTF was he supposed to do about it? Close down all the airports across the country? He had no more way of knowing about 911 than Clinton did about the OKC bombing. But of course because Clinton could do no wrong, you'd never try to place any blame on him for the bombing.

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Bush failed to keep us safe....3000 died

Then to retaliate he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq at a cost of another 7000 lives

Worst President in modern era (Trump is working hard though)





.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Charities spend a large percentage of their efforts fund raising and advertising .....not very efficient
Government has a steady flow of revenue, some of which goes to help We the People

Leaders of private charities get paid more than civil servants

Depends on the charities and there are excellent sources to help find the best, most efficient charities.

On the other hand, government skims off fifty to seventy percent, if not more, for buildings, bureaucracy, fraud and waste. There is nothing government does that private industry cannot do more efficiently, better and for less money.

Charity Navigator - Your Guide To Intelligent Giving | Home

It's amazing, what a motivation it is to have to actually convince people to give you money.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and we the people empowered trump and the GOP to do our governing. So why is it you feel the dems should have some stronghold because of their gigantic losses.

We the People voted against him

If we lived in the straight democracy you imagine, you'd have a point. But, of course, we'd also have segregation and limited rights for women and Gays. So, not even YOU would support a straight democracy.

I don't think the majority of people in this country are in favor those things

Not now, perhaps, but at the time that segregation was overturned, popular opinion supported it.

I doubt that or the congress critters wouldn't have voted for it. Got to keep the voters happy

In actual fact, at the time segregation was "overturned" by law, it was because it was something the government had imposed to begin with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But again, it happens and you've shown you have no problem when the govt does it for negative reasons.

I don't have a problem with a person eating chocolate or sugar. But like I've said, how many times now, that a lot of the bad food is coming out cheaper than it should be.

People pay tax on things, and they don't pay tax on other stuff. Some states don't charge you tax for groceries and will charge you for buying a book. Someone's already making these decisions. It's not about me wanting to decide what someone eats, it's about not having sugary food dirt cheap and healthy food expensive, just because the sugary food keeps easily and the multinationals are shipping the stuff around and getting all the tax breaks. But again, you seem to like that.

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Does Franco really think that there are no stores selling produce and fresh meat in cities?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because I worked the numbers. That's what the predominant religion in my area contributes. Maybe some religions are more generous - but I doubt it's by much.

Who knew you are the accountant for all the churches in your area. Obviously you know nothing about how churches work and the many, many ways they help in their communities.

And obviously you don't know the ways in which some churches influence politics which undermines their value in whatever good they might do.

Really? And what are these ways, and how do they coincide with the IRS regulations limiting such activity if one wishes to retain a tax-exempt status?

 

[Skull Pilot]

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Does Franco really think that there are no stores selling produce and fresh meat in cities?

yes he actually believes that there are no supermarkets in any city in the USA

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Its what Republican Jesus would've wanted

Always a pleasure to hear pronouncements from someone who knows nothing about Republicans OR Jesus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Its what Republican Jesus would've wanted

Ha, pretty much nailed it. Most Republicans who consider themselves 'Good Christians', are only worthy of being mocked and shamed.

We'll get right on feeling "shamed" by the mockery of someone we wouldn't piss on if you were on fire.

Please continue to enjoy your delusions of relevance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Its what Republican Jesus would've wanted

"Whats wrong with these people ? We can all catch a fish and bake a loaf."

And then there's the approach Jesus would have used had he been a leftist: "I know! Let's pass a law that the government has to take fish from everyone in the village and bring it out here to us!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Its what Republican Jesus would've wanted

"Whats wrong with these people ? We can all catch a fish and bake a loaf."

Well, I don't fish much... but I sure can bake a loaf of bread. It's amazing in it's simplicity!

And, of course, there's the difference between personally giving of one's own goods - the sort of charity Jesus actually advocated - and having the government take money away from one group and give it to another so that leftists don't have to actually interact with those icky poor folks. For some reason, that always confuses them.