Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
Total disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.
For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human rightTotal disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.
For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
Not just for the wealthy
citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
It's wrong because theft is wrong.
citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
It's wrong because theft is wrong.
First off, it's not an all or nothing scenario. 1% of people are very wealthy, and another 1% are on welfare their whole lives. What about the other 98% of the population? How about the 15% of Americans who have no health insurance at all?
What about the guy who has worked hard all of his life at low paying jobs and has no medical insurance. Is he to be left to die because he his savings are inadequate to cover the cost of his treatment? How about the fact that half of the bankruptciesi in the US are the result of medical costs?
Taxation is price we pay to live in a first world country, with infrastructure, a stable government and a healthy well-educated work force, all of which improves the quality of life. That is not theft.
I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human rightTotal disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.
For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
Not just for the wealthy
Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
Do you see the difference?
What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
Well, I suppose if you believe the flack you are fed in school and see on television....I don't care if you live in a cardboard box under the interstate. If you get cancer, you deserve to be treated. We are the greatest society in the history of humanity.
If you are living in a cardboard box under the decaying infrastructure of the interstate, you might not be so sure of that.We are not Calcutta.
And you imagine that the United States is a great nation?Human dignity demands that we take care of our sick. Letting them die is not an acceptable social policy for a great nation
I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human rightTotal disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.
For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
Not just for the wealthy
Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
Do you see the difference?
What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
Not just for the wealthy
Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
Do you see the difference?
What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly
You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world
If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict
I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
Not just for the wealthy
Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
Do you see the difference?
What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
Head down to the local emergency room and talk to the nurses. They will tell you that the dregs of our society come there every day for free clothing, shelter, food, water, drugs, cell phones, ... The dregs want it all they don't care whether it's all paid for via welfare based health care or any other welfare program.
Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
Do you see the difference?
What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly
You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world
If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict
Okay great. I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities, cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one. Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard. So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself. I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history. (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)
You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly
You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world
If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict
Okay great. I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities, cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one. Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard. So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself. I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history. (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)
I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be “poor” in the United States?
To the average American, the word “poverty” means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
Read more at:
'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human rightTotal disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.
For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
Not just for the wealthy
citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
It's wrong because theft is wrong.
Agreed. It's the job of our government to break up those monopolies. I support that.Building a company in a free enterprise environment where there is lively competition to create a better product is a good thing.You say that like building a company is a bad thing. What a dumb ass.
Building a multinational monopoly which interferes in government to rob and exploit the public and destroy its competition -- and which uses brainwashing advertising to make people believe an inferior product is "new and improved" -- that is definitely a bad thing.
I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement when it is a case of thieves who are being robbed.It's wrong because theft is wrong.
After all, why has Robin Hood been so popular for so many centuries?
I say, stick it to King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham !!
.
Okay great. I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities, cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one. Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard. So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself. I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history. (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)
I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has? Trust me. Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be poor in the United States?
To the average American, the word poverty means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the governments own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment thats not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical poor American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasnt hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureaus old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered poor if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an escalator that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
Read more at:
'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely? There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway. And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have. So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
So thanks. We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness. No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills. No one should have to work. No one should have to go hungry. No one should have to live with other family members. Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has? Trust me. Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be poor in the United States?
To the average American, the word poverty means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the governments own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment thats not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical poor American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasnt hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureaus old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered poor if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an escalator that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
Read more at:
'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely? There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway. And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have. So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
So thanks. We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
So you are barely getting by
You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about. We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
'
We live in a militarized gangster state which has a thin veneer of republican formalism.We live in a republic not a democracy
Only people with childish minds are taken in by the window-dressing.
.
So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness. No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills. No one should have to work. No one should have to go hungry. No one should have to live with other family members. Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has? Trust me. Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely? There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway. And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have. So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
So thanks. We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
So you are barely getting by
You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about. We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
Sad. Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant. It just means you are stupid.
The right wing mind. Only capable of the childish, absurd, polarized (black or white, all or none) argument.
The right wing mind. Only capable of the childish, absurd, polarized (black or white, all or none) argument.
That you think having to work for a living to raise a family and live a full life is childish, absurd, and polarizing just shows everyone how much of a commie pinko you are.
I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has? Trust me. Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be poor in the United States?
To the average American, the word poverty means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the governments own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment thats not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical poor American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasnt hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureaus old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered poor if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an escalator that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
Read more at:
'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely? There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway. And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have. So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
So thanks. We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
So you are barely getting by
You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about. We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
