Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[frigidweirdo]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it. That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

I would say that if most people of that school district held that belief, why not? It's their money.

Probably because that's not what school is about. There's a reason governments around the world started to implement mass education, and force kids to go to school. You can see why if you go to certain places in Africa where kids don't go to school and see what the impact is. Society has decided that society is much better when people receive a certain level of education. Going into school and learning make belief really doesn't help to develop the country.

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Truth is, if I were ever dumb enough to move to one of the mega-cities, I would be looking around for a nice, private religious school for my kid. Wouldn't even have to be my church; would just need to be a religion that teaches about virtue and moral behavior. Jewish schools and Chinese schools where everyone's Buddhist would be just fine with me.

Which is understandable.

Now the issue here is what morals and virtues do you think are necessary in the modern world? Surely these would be morals shared by a large percentage of the country, so why aren't these morals a part of every kid's education? I mean, kids need to learn how to be adults and schools are in a position to shape kids to become the sort of adults society wants them to be.

So the morals of the majority should be indoctrinated into the children of the minority? You don't see how that's a problem?

Parents are the biggest shaper of their children, and should be completely responsible for it, not schools. Especially since A. No one loves their own children more than parents B. A school cannot give sufficient means of shaping their students, since they are not capable of giving the required time, patience, resources, to every single students individual needs.

Schools should be working with parents as parents take the lead in raising their children. Schools should definitely not be in the business of indoctrination. Only business in teaching our youth is how to learn, not what to learn, and doing so along with parents, not against them.

Not really, no. It already happens, it's called being a part of society.

Parents are the biggest shaper of their own children, and many of them aren't shaping their kids into respectable members of society.

We make laws, we demand that people abide by these rules. You don't see how that's a problem?
Perhaps schools should be working with parents to help shape their kids. Problem is that being a parent doesn't come with many must dos, one of those is getting them an education, and often it's left to teachers to try and shape those kids into decent human beings because their parents won't.

Now, if their parents won't, chances are when they become parents they won't either, do you see the problem here?

 

[task0778]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Staying with that analogy, you pull the drowning man out of the surf, but you don't proceed to build walls around the ocean and a wading pool so he can play without fearing the waves. We don't want a safety net to just catch people and leave them there, we want a trampoline to bounce them back into productivity so they can again provide for themselves. That's the difference between the modern liberal and conservative approach. The conservative approach wants to see more people off assistance and able to provide for themselves while the liberal approach seems to desire more people dependent on assistance.

Exactly! Conservatives measure compassion by how many people DON'T NEED it any more.

I would doubt that very much.

You have the partisan conservatives who only care about winning, you have the conservatives who are interested only in getting as much from the system as possible, then you have a few conservatives who actually do care, but these are way in the minority.

Some people would say the same thing about partisan liberals. It's unfortunate that you really think there are only a few conservatives who actually do care.

 

[koshergrl]

You can keep your doctor.

Bush stole 2000 election.

Bush stole 2004 election.

Bush lied to get us into war.

Republicans want dirty air, water, starve children, starve the elderly.

There is a few, you can have lots more. Neither party is immune to lies.

I guess I should thank you for taking a shot at it, but those aren't lies. There is a difference between being mistaken and deliberately trying to deceive. And if there is evidence that would lead you to a certain conclusion, then that conclusion can't possibly be a lie. At its worse, you could be wrong, but definitely not a liar. Now lets take a closer look at your examples...

You can keep your doctor.
This one was just a mistake.

Bush stole 2000 election.
The Supreme Court stopped a recount after people (paid by Bush) went down to Florida to start riots. We know they were paid by Bush, because that expense shows up on his campaign budget that he is legally required to turn in to the IRS. So this one is not a lie, this one is true.

Bush stole 2004 election.
Off the top of my head, I don't remember what this was about. And since I have nothing to counter your argument, I guess I have to give you this one........for now.

Bush lied to get us into war.
God-damn right he lied us into a war and the Downing Street Memo's prove it. So no lie there.

Republicans want dirty air, water, starve children, starve the elderly.
This is a joke, right? The EPA is removing its regulations and allowing coal and oil companies to pollute the water; you're cutting social services which affect children and you just cancelled "meals on wheels". You got a lot of gall saying that's a lie.​

Stole 2004? Don't remember, that memo didn't prove a thing. And Saddam admitted to the CIA the WMDs were a bluff on his death bed.


.

Pretty stupid bluff. That is also an admission that he wanted us to believe they had them.

so we believed.

 

[koshergrl]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it. That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

Probably because that's not what school is about. There's a reason governments around the world started to implement mass education, and force kids to go to school. You can see why if you go to certain places in Africa where kids don't go to school and see what the impact is. Society has decided that society is much better when people receive a certain level of education. Going into school and learning make belief really doesn't help to develop the country.

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Truth is, if I were ever dumb enough to move to one of the mega-cities, I would be looking around for a nice, private religious school for my kid. Wouldn't even have to be my church; would just need to be a religion that teaches about virtue and moral behavior. Jewish schools and Chinese schools where everyone's Buddhist would be just fine with me.

Which is understandable.

Now the issue here is what morals and virtues do you think are necessary in the modern world? Surely these would be morals shared by a large percentage of the country, so why aren't these morals a part of every kid's education? I mean, kids need to learn how to be adults and schools are in a position to shape kids to become the sort of adults society wants them to be.

So the morals of the majority should be indoctrinated into the children of the minority? You don't see how that's a problem?

Parents are the biggest shaper of their children, and should be completely responsible for it, not schools. Especially since A. No one loves their own children more than parents B. A school cannot give sufficient means of shaping their students, since they are not capable of giving the required time, patience, resources, to every single students individual needs.

Schools should be working with parents as parents take the lead in raising their children. Schools should definitely not be in the business of indoctrination. Only business in teaching our youth is how to learn, not what to learn, and doing so along with parents, not against them.

Not really, no. It already happens, it's called being a part of society.

Parents are the biggest shaper of their own children, and many of them aren't shaping their kids into respectable members of society.

We make laws, we demand that people abide by these rules. You don't see how that's a problem?
Perhaps schools should be working with parents to help shape their kids. Problem is that being a parent doesn't come with many must dos, one of those is getting them an education, and often it's left to teachers to try and shape those kids into decent human beings because their parents won't.

Now, if their parents won't, chances are when they become parents they won't either, do you see the problem here?

The schools need to teach. Period.

 

[Papageorgio]

Good for you, but many didn't.

Less than 10%

So he did lie, thanks!

Actually, he replied to the Republican lie that everyone would lose their doctor

Actually that's YOUR lie, nobody said that everyone would lose their doctor, but rather when Obama said if you like your doctor you could keep your doctor. Which was in fact a bald-faced lie.

Prediction that wasn't 100% true- also the way things were going anyway- also caused by GOP/crony insurer sabotage and people not checking the doctor networks. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It was no prediction, it was an out and out lie to get support for a bad bill. Quit lying dumb dumb.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can keep your doctor.

Bush stole 2000 election.

Bush stole 2004 election.

Bush lied to get us into war.

Republicans want dirty air, water, starve children, starve the elderly.

There is a few, you can have lots more. Neither party is immune to lies.

I guess I should thank you for taking a shot at it, but those aren't lies. There is a difference between being mistaken and deliberately trying to deceive. And if there is evidence that would lead you to a certain conclusion, then that conclusion can't possibly be a lie. At its worse, you could be wrong, but definitely not a liar. Now lets take a closer look at your examples...

You can keep your doctor.
This one was just a mistake.

Bush stole 2000 election.
The Supreme Court stopped a recount after people (paid by Bush) went down to Florida to start riots. We know they were paid by Bush, because that expense shows up on his campaign budget that he is legally required to turn in to the IRS. So this one is not a lie, this one is true.

Bush stole 2004 election.
Off the top of my head, I don't remember what this was about. And since I have nothing to counter your argument, I guess I have to give you this one........for now.

Bush lied to get us into war.
God-damn right he lied us into a war and the Downing Street Memo's prove it. So no lie there.

Republicans want dirty air, water, starve children, starve the elderly.
This is a joke, right? The EPA is removing its regulations and allowing coal and oil companies to pollute the water; you're cutting social services which affect children and you just cancelled "meals on wheels". You got a lot of gall saying that's a lie.​

You can keep your doctor was an out and out lie to get support from the country as most were against the health bill. Bush stole nothing the recounts had Bush ahead and so nothing was stolen, just a left wing nutters lie. No proof Bush lied to get us into a war. When most of his opposition at the time supported him based on the information they had all received. Nobody wants dirty anything, they are looking to balance the needs vs the environment. Who is starving?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Staying with that analogy, you pull the drowning man out of the surf, but you don't proceed to build walls around the ocean and a wading pool so he can play without fearing the waves. We don't want a safety net to just catch people and leave them there, we want a trampoline to bounce them back into productivity so they can again provide for themselves. That's the difference between the modern liberal and conservative approach. The conservative approach wants to see more people off assistance and able to provide for themselves while the liberal approach seems to desire more people dependent on assistance.

Yep, that kind of fits what I know about conservatives. Throw a drowning man a trampoline!

 

[Skull Pilot]

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Truth is, if I were ever dumb enough to move to one of the mega-cities, I would be looking around for a nice, private religious school for my kid. Wouldn't even have to be my church; would just need to be a religion that teaches about virtue and moral behavior. Jewish schools and Chinese schools where everyone's Buddhist would be just fine with me.

Which is understandable.

Now the issue here is what morals and virtues do you think are necessary in the modern world? Surely these would be morals shared by a large percentage of the country, so why aren't these morals a part of every kid's education? I mean, kids need to learn how to be adults and schools are in a position to shape kids to become the sort of adults society wants them to be.

So the morals of the majority should be indoctrinated into the children of the minority? You don't see how that's a problem?

Parents are the biggest shaper of their children, and should be completely responsible for it, not schools. Especially since A. No one loves their own children more than parents B. A school cannot give sufficient means of shaping their students, since they are not capable of giving the required time, patience, resources, to every single students individual needs.

Schools should be working with parents as parents take the lead in raising their children. Schools should definitely not be in the business of indoctrination. Only business in teaching our youth is how to learn, not what to learn, and doing so along with parents, not against them.

Not really, no. It already happens, it's called being a part of society.

Parents are the biggest shaper of their own children, and many of them aren't shaping their kids into respectable members of society.

We make laws, we demand that people abide by these rules. You don't see how that's a problem?
Perhaps schools should be working with parents to help shape their kids. Problem is that being a parent doesn't come with many must dos, one of those is getting them an education, and often it's left to teachers to try and shape those kids into decent human beings because their parents won't.

Now, if their parents won't, chances are when they become parents they won't either, do you see the problem here?

The schools need to teach. Period.

The only purpose of public education or any education for that matter is to give a person the tools to think for himself and make his own decisions.

all this "molding "shaping" "influencing" shit along with ham handed behavioral modification via tax penalties is nothing but a control freak's wet dream

 

[francoHFW]

Liberal policies haven't been PASSED in 30 years.

what do you call Obama care?

ACA. lol. The exception that proves the rule.

yeah Obammycare is the ONLY liberal thin g that has been signed into law in 30 years

are you fucking high?

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

 

[francoHFW]

Pompous twat.

Why was it a grand thing and worked so successfully when it was sent to President Clinton for his signature after he had VETOED the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by Newt Gingrich?

As you know, it was canceled by petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama resulting in RECORD RATES AND NUMBERS of people on welfare, food stamps and every other form of assistance.

It was cancelled simply because it was unworkable in the middle of a corrupt world depression, dupe. DUHHHHHHH

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

"Sometimes need a bit of help". Great. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But, let's look at this logically. Who makes the case that someone has been helped a lot and should now provide for themselves? Who makes the case that it's cruel to make someone provide for themselves? A case in point, what happens when unemployment benefits run out after 2 years? Modern conservatives say that people should take what work they can find, while "liberals" say that we should keep extending those benefits ad infinitum.

No they dont. There may be exceptional cases that require this but generally people should be able to sort themselves out in that time.

 

[hadit]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Staying with that analogy, you pull the drowning man out of the surf, but you don't proceed to build walls around the ocean and a wading pool so he can play without fearing the waves. We don't want a safety net to just catch people and leave them there, we want a trampoline to bounce them back into productivity so they can again provide for themselves. That's the difference between the modern liberal and conservative approach. The conservative approach wants to see more people off assistance and able to provide for themselves while the liberal approach seems to desire more people dependent on assistance.

Yep, that kind of fits what I know about conservatives. Throw a drowning man a trampoline!

Then "what you know" is pretty suspect. Do you need me to parse my sentences so you can grasp more than one thought at a time?

 

[Skull Pilot]

what do you call Obama care?

ACA. lol. The exception that proves the rule.

yeah Obammycare is the ONLY liberal thin g that has been signed into law in 30 years

are you fucking high?

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

Hey IDIOT if you said there were NONE I only had to provide ONE to prove you wrong. I did that

stop being such a fucking pussy about it

 

[francoHFW]

increasing defense spending never engenders more peace.

Nonsense!

Had Poland, France, Great Britain and Russia had massive, modern militaries, would Germany have started WW-II? Of course not. Even if they had, they would have been crushed saving literally tens of millions of lives.

Does the name Neville Chamberlin ring a bell

Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama has vividly demonstrated who displaying timidity and weakness "deters" our enemies.

Thanks GOP for the corrupt Great Depression that gave rise to Hitler and Japanese militarists, and for the isolationism that allowed them to run wild until we were finally attacked. Also for wrecking the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations. France had a great military but were incredibly unlucky. Germany had to to have a war of conquest to pay off its debt etc...

 

[francoHFW]

ACA. lol. The exception that proves the rule.

yeah Obammycare is the ONLY liberal thin g that has been signed into law in 30 years

are you fucking high?

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

Hey IDIOT if you said there were NONE I only had to provide ONE to prove you wrong. I did that

stop being such a fucking pussy about it

ACA of course DUHHH, the only time the Dems had 60 votes since FDR or LBJ. LOL.

You jackass dupes believe it's a Dem society with absolutely no evidence. Try quoting the whole argument. You're getting GOP dishonesty down to a T...

 

[Papageorgio]

what do you call Obama care?

ACA. lol. The exception that proves the rule.

yeah Obammycare is the ONLY liberal thin g that has been signed into law in 30 years

are you fucking high?

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

It seems Skull Pilot called you out and you are unable to answer the bell. You have been had dumb dumb.

 

[francoHFW]

ACA. lol. The exception that proves the rule.

yeah Obammycare is the ONLY liberal thin g that has been signed into law in 30 years

are you fucking high?

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

It seems Skull Pilot called you out and you are unable to answer the bell. You have been had dumb dumb.

So tell us all the Dem policies that have made us a nightmare society the last 35 years. Dupes somehow believe Obama policies passed during his 2 years of total control (with 200+ GOP filibusters) added to that...

Yes ACA passed DUH.Everyone not paid by GOP billionaires agrees that had no effect on the economy.

 

[Papageorgio]

yeah Obammycare is the ONLY liberal thin g that has been signed into law in 30 years

are you fucking high?

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

It seems Skull Pilot called you out and you are unable to answer the bell. You have been had dumb dumb.

So tell us all the Dem policies that have made us a nightmare society the last 35 years. Dupes somehow believe Obama policies passed during his 2 years of total control (with 200+ GOP filibusters) added to that...

Yes ACA passed DUH.Everyone not paid by GOP billionaires agrees that had no effect on the economy.

ACA is a nightmare dumb dumb, anyone who thinks it is working is a dumb dumb, dumb dumb.

 

[francoHFW]

What else?

You said there were none you are wrong I don't have to provide any more proof

RW idiocy. We're a RW functional oligarchy/kleptocracy and you dupes blame the Dems. Ay caramba.

It seems Skull Pilot called you out and you are unable to answer the bell. You have been had dumb dumb.

So tell us all the Dem policies that have made us a nightmare society the last 35 years. Dupes somehow believe Obama policies passed during his 2 years of total control (with 200+ GOP filibusters) added to that...

Yes ACA passed DUH.Everyone not paid by GOP billionaires agrees that had no effect on the economy.

ACA is a nightmare dumb dumb, anyone who thinks it is working is a dumb dumb, dumb dumb.

It's working better than it was before ACA. Also irrelevant to this argument. Tell us why our mess of a country is Dems' fault, not the New BS GOP's, dupe. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

"Sometimes need a bit of help". Great. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But, let's look at this logically. Who makes the case that someone has been helped a lot and should now provide for themselves? Who makes the case that it's cruel to make someone provide for themselves? A case in point, what happens when unemployment benefits run out after 2 years? Modern conservatives say that people should take what work they can find, while "liberals" say that we should keep extending those benefits ad infinitum.

I look at it as give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.....Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what do you do when there are no fish left in the pond?


.

Move to another pond.