Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Markle]

Clinton caught and prosecuted those involved in the 1993 bombing

And did nothing with the intelligence he gained. Resulting in 9/11/2001.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

Even if someone is selling them tainted food?

that has nothing to do with the choice to eat anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

This has got to be one THE most stupid fucking things you've ever said.

A few examples. A girl down my street when I was a kid was born into a family of well to do people, but she want's born right. According to you it must be her fucking fault that she came out wrong. She can't really work well, she can't learn well, she does some program in a supermarket for people such as herself to make them feel valued in society and not just be outcasts unwanted. She could never, ever hold down a proper job, it's impossible, she wasn't born right. But again, you think it's her fault.

1/4 of people have mental problems. My family has a history of mental problems, and one person in my family doesn't work, could do the work but struggles being around people and this led to her quitting jobs, going off sick and then unable to get new jobs, because who wants a person with such a medical record, hey? But yeah, according to you it's all her fucking fault.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

So, people shouldn't be told what is good for them? People shouldn't be told anything at all, let them struggle and figure it out for themselves?

Issac Newton said that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", meaning, you have to learn from others in order to get further ahead.

But not, fuck Issac Newton, he didn't do anything for anyone, other than apple sellers, right? Fuck him, education sucks, fuck education, let's go back to the time of neanderthals.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

This has got to be one THE most stupid fucking things you've ever said.

A few examples. A girl down my street when I was a kid was born into a family of well to do people, but she want's born right. According to you it must be her fucking fault that she came out wrong. She can't really work well, she can't learn well, she does some program in a supermarket for people such as herself to make them feel valued in society and not just be outcasts unwanted. She could never, ever hold down a proper job, it's impossible, she wasn't born right. But again, you think it's her fault.

1/4 of people have mental problems. My family has a history of mental problems, and one person in my family doesn't work, could do the work but struggles being around people and this led to her quitting jobs, going off sick and then unable to get new jobs, because who wants a person with such a medical record, hey? But yeah, according to you it's all her fucking fault.

so now a birth defect is the same as choosing to be fat?

No one chooses to be handicapped or mentally retarded.

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton caught and prosecuted those involved in the 1993 bombing

And did nothing with the intelligence he gained. Resulting in 9/11/2001.

What intelligence indicated there would be another attack in eight years?

 

[rightwinger]

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

Even if someone is selling them tainted food?

that has nothing to do with the choice to eat anything.

We have had a food and drug administration for 100 years dictating what foods and additives are allowed in the American market
Your attitude is buyer beware

 

[Skull Pilot]

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

So, people shouldn't be told what is good for them? People shouldn't be told anything at all, let them struggle and figure it out for themselves?

Issac Newton said that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", meaning, you have to learn from others in order to get further ahead.

But not, fuck Issac Newton, he didn't do anything for anyone, other than apple sellers, right? Fuck him, education sucks, fuck education, let's go back to the time of neanderthals.....

You don't just want to tell people you want to TAX people
Besides all the info in the world on nutrition is already available to everyone in this country. If they don't choose to look it up read and apply it that is their choice. And that choice is none of your fucking business.

And don't for one minute think newton did what he did for anyone else but himself so he could secure his position

And where did I say education sucks? I am telling you that YOU do not have the right to tell people what to do and to punish them with taxes if they don't do what YOU think they should do

 

[Skull Pilot]

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

Even if someone is selling them tainted food?

that has nothing to do with the choice to eat anything.

We have had a food and drug administration for 100 years dictating what foods and additives are allowed in the American market
Your attitude is buyer beware

Again food safety has nothing to do with what people choose to eat

I can't make it any simpler than that

 

[rightwinger]

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

Even if someone is selling them tainted food?

that has nothing to do with the choice to eat anything.

We have had a food and drug administration for 100 years dictating what foods and additives are allowed in the American market
Your attitude is buyer beware

Again food safety has nothing to do with what people choose to eat

I can't make it any simpler than that

Where does the gubmint tell you foods you are not allowed to eat?
They make recommendations...where are the laws?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

Exactly right. My husband and I have the same employer, and we have EXACTLY THE SAME COVERAGE. Why? We don't have even remotely the same bodies or medical histories. Why do I pay for coverage for Viagra and prostate exams? Why does he pay for coverage for mammograms and PAP smears? Why are we both paying for coverage for birth control?

I am so grateful that we have an incredible employer who went to the expense and effort of offering a variety of coverage choices, instead of one-size-fits-all to whoever was the lowest bidder. At least we have the option of getting as close as possible to a basic minimum, catastrophic care plan with an HSA.

Government is good at running some things, but not most such as healthcare.

Commie Care was political right from the beginning. It was all about vote buying and catering to their voters. My medication is life sustaining. Without it, I die. But Commie Care didn't regulate that insurance cover my medication, they regulated that they must provide birth control and abortion coverage. I'd love to find one lefty that can explain that one to me if they disagree it was about vote buying.

My medication to keep me alive every month, about $200.00. Birth control? Usually under $20.00 a month.

Well, but how many votes can they get from people who have your condition, and how many can they get from people who want to screw without consequences? Come on, now, Ray. You have to be reasonable and consider what REALLY matters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

No, it didn't go over my head. I'm also not in favor of the govt micromanaging our lives.

However there are certain things, like education, in which the govt is best placed on a mass scale, to carry out. However in the US the problem seems to be a nationwide attitude that is just plain wrong. Okay, some states do better than others, but still there are plenty of problems out there.

The problem is Ray, the govt ALREADY DOES THIS. So where's your liberty? It's in the hands of the rich right now. They want you to be fat, because a 36% obesity level makes a lot of rich people richer.

Now you're being silly. Nobody gives a rats ass how much I or anybody else weighs. Rich people don't get rich on seeing others get fat, rich people get rich by investing their money into making products or services the public uses.

Yeah, for the most part government is totally involved in our education, and how's that working out for us?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

Even if someone is selling them tainted food?

that has nothing to do with the choice to eat anything.

We have had a food and drug administration for 100 years dictating what foods and additives are allowed in the American market
Your attitude is buyer beware

Again food safety has nothing to do with what people choose to eat

I can't make it any simpler than that

Where does the gubmint tell you foods you are not allowed to eat?
They make recommendations...where are the laws?

you aren't following the conversation I have been having with the weirdo so go catch up

 

[rightwinger]

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

Dumb dumb is blaming Bush for 911 and saying he could of prevented it. He cites an article that stated that a government bureau said a suicide bombers would be a probability. So the government agency had the info during Clinton's administration but he didn't act on it, yet he blames Bush for ignoring two year old warning. Give me a break! Dumb dumb is being really stupid. He cites it and then excuses one but not the other? What a dumb dumb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you have a kid who's not producing, do you take him in, no strings attached and make his life as pleasant and painless as can be?