Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Skull Pilot]

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.

move the goalposts again why don't ya?

 

[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.

move the goalposts again why don't ya?

You chumps believe Dems wrecked our society, while they've passed no policies that did that. ALL GOP, dupes. A giveaway to the rich, cuts for everything the nonrich need, a corrupt GOP world depression, allowed 9/11 thru sheer incompetence, and the stupidest wars ever. And most GOPers don't believe any of that and blame Dems thru pure misinformation repeated endlessly.

 

[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.

move the goalposts again why don't ya?

Congrats, you remembered ACA which I thought was a given, and IRRELEVANT to the argument of who ruined the middle class and the country the last 35 years.

 

[Markle]

you have the conservatives who are interested only in getting as much from the system as possible,

You mean Progressives here do you not?

 

[Markle]

No one loves their own children more than parents

Wish that were true. Millions of people, sadly, see their kids as an inconvenience. If that was not true, there would not be millions of abortions and millions of kids living in poverty.

 

[Markle]

You chumps believe Dems wrecked our society, while they've passed no policies that did that.

No one can be this ignorant. Obviously, you have way too much time on your hands and just enjoy stirring the pot.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yeah, Sparkles, you just keep telling yourself THAT'S how reality is.

I was telling you that, not me. If you want to debate this issue, then lets do it. If you just want to act like a condescending little bitch and sit back and think how cool you're trying to sound, then just keep doing what you're doing.

Seriously, though, does that "shouting at the universe to make it reform and suit me" thing you lefties do ever actually work?

That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Billo_Really]

That is the crux of the problem. It was NEVER in the law. It was just in the campaign promises. Hence, a lie.

At the time the ACA went for a vote, he was already in office. Ergo, he wasn't campaigning. Even so, a promise is not necessarily a lie. And I have yet to see any evidence, from anyone, showing he knew going in people would not get to keep their doctor.

 

[Markle]

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

No, if it was a mistake, it might have been mentioned once or twice. Such as Sen. Obama claiming he had visited 57 states.

 

[initforme]

the poor have no place in America. it's always been that way. but to state that means one is anti American. so if that is the case then I guess I am anti American...and PROUD of it. Facts hurt.

 

[Billo_Really]

You can keep your doctor was an out and out lie to get support from the country as most were against the health bill.

Explain why it was a lie. I've already explained why it would not be. And most of the country was NOT against this bill. 70% of Americans wanted this bill passed. How could most of the country be against this bill when, at the time, 51% of all bankruptcies in the country were due to medical costs?

Bush stole nothing the recounts had Bush ahead and so nothing was stolen, just a left wing nutters lie.

How do you know, the one in Florida was not able to finish.

No proof Bush lied to get us into a war.

I already posted the proof, if you don't want to believe it, that's your business.

When most of his opposition at the time supported him based on the information they had all received.

I was part of the opposition. Still am. I knew it was bullshit the moment he started talking about it. Why would anyone think a country of goat herders, with barely any running water or electricity, 9000 miles away with no navy, is a threat to a country with the most technologically advanced military this planet has ever seen?

Nobody wants dirty anything, they are looking to balance the needs vs the environment. Who is starving?

They are looking to deconstruct basic services just to feed that obscene defense budget.

Who are they starving? The people who were receiving meals on wheels.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, I think some people, like myself, would say that about all partisan hacks. It's unfortunate that only a few conservatives actually do care. I mean, you look on a forum like this, you see the real world, you realize that most people live in some sort of fantasy world where reality takes a back seat, and you know that too many people don't care.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, if it was a mistake, it might have been mentioned once or twice. Such as Sen. Obama claiming he had visited 57 states.

My point is, how could he know, at that time, that people couldn't keep their doctor? They were still setting up the exchanges.

 

[Markle]

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.

LIE on your part...again!

USA Today

5/15/2001

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, if it was a mistake, it might have been mentioned once or twice. Such as Sen. Obama claiming he had visited 57 states.

My point is, how could he know, at that time, that people couldn't keep their doctor? They were still setting up the exchanges.

Because they knew many people would lose their current insurance at the time. If you couldn't find (or afford) a plan on the Commie list that had your doctor, you simply lost your doctor or would have to pay cash for his or her services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How do you know, the one in Florida was not able to finish.

That's because in Florida, all ballots had to be certified in seven days. No if's ands or buts about it.

If you want a recount, fine, have a recount and have your ballots turned in in seven days.

The problem in Florida was leftist judges. The lib judges who were Gore's buddies decided they didn't like the seven day law. So they ruled Gore could take all the time he needed to find ballots in his favor. They created law on the bench also known as judicial legislation.

When the Supreme Court got the case, they sent it back to the Florida courts to ask them WTF in the world they were doing? That's when the race was declared over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Except that it's not. Have you ever taught kids? Probably not, then you'd understand that one of the skills of a good teacher is to shape kids so they do better.

 

[Markle]

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.

You really are a blind Progressive, aren't you?

Again, not a lie. In addition, WMD's WERE FOUND, as well as 550 tonnes of yellowcake.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.


"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.


Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)




He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."


Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.


"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.






And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

###

 

[initforme]

in the end of the richest nation in the world cannot come up with an easy solution to affordable healthcare I disavow it...even if I was born and raised in it.

 

[initforme]

we have no business being there in a battle we cannot win in the first place.