To all you crazy right wing SBR phucks!

[bettilimbroke999]

let me ask you a question bettill. i'm leaving and wont be back until late so i wont be able to respond till later.

let's say me and you are walking down the road. we walk up on a homeless man laying on the side of the road. he's cold, starving, and homeless.
now out of what happens next, you tell me which is and isnt morally acceptable.

A: i give the guy $100 so he can go buy some food and clothes.
B: you tell the guy you have an old barn he can sleep at.
C: a representative from the state drives up, pulls out a gun and tells me to give the bum $100, looks to you and tells you to provide shelter for him until further notice.

this is an easy quiz. even you know which one isnt acceptable.

there's nothing wrong with charity, there's everything wrong with welfare.

First off as far as adults on welfare I could careless if they rot and starve to death, get a fukin job I say, but the prob is if they have kids I can't tell a 2 yr old to get a fukin job so we're forced to do something if you dont think a 2 yr old deserves to starve.

Honestly we've ranted and raved about our political differences since Obama got elected and clearly I'm not going to convince you I'm right and you're not going to convince me of your beliefs so let's just agree to disagree , gl in your business/job and future

[reno cool]

let me ask you a question bettill. i'm leaving and wont be back until late so i wont be able to respond till later.

let's say me and you are walking down the road. we walk up on a homeless man laying on the side of the road. he's cold, starving, and homeless.
now out of what happens next, you tell me which is and isnt morally acceptable.

A: i give the guy $100 so he can go buy some food and clothes.
B: you tell the guy you have an old barn he can sleep at.
C: a representative from the state drives up, pulls out a gun and tells me to give the bum $100, looks to you and tells you to provide shelter for him until further notice.

this is an easy quiz. even you know which one isnt acceptable.

there's nothing wrong with charity, there's everything wrong with welfare.

Problem is, once again you're putting yourself outside the system. You refuse to recognize that the system that allows you(perhaps) to make a fortune gaurantees that some one else will live in poverty. It's bad enough that people like you would support such a system, but to insist that those in peril would suffer even more makes you a low life.

[Flying Dutchman]

First off as far as adults on welfare I could careless if they rot and starve to death, get a fukin job I say, but the prob is if they have kids I can't tell a 2 yr old to get a fukin job so we're forced to do something if you dont think a 2 yr old deserves to starve.

There ain't no fvkking jobs in the USA. Go read your papers. The unemployment rate is 10% overall in the US.

In dead zones like Los Angeles, its almost 13%.

If you stupid shits would man your borders, this would be less of a problem. But your own Republican gov't under W the Anti-christ would NOT do it.

The so-called American "conservative" movement is a pack of contradictions held in place by a bunch of stealing, hypocritical, career politicians.

Your day is done. The Wacko-right wingers broke it, and the leftie-lous will keep it broke.

Learn to speak Chinese.

[DwightShrute]

There ain't no fvkking jobs in the USA. Go read your papers. The unemployment rate is 10% overall in the US.

In dead zones like Los Angeles, its almost 13%.

If you stupid shits would man your borders, this would be less of a problem. But your own Republican gov't under W the Anti-christ would NOT do it.

The so-called American "conservative" movement is a pack of contradictions held in place by a bunch of stealing, hypocritical, career politicians.

Your day is done. The Wacko-right wingers broke it, and the leftie-lous will keep it broke.

Learn to speak Chinese.

Hard to disagree except " W the Anti-christ"
他不是一樣壞的，像您使他

[losturmarbles]

Problem is, once again you're putting yourself outside the system. You refuse to recognize that the system that allows you(perhaps) to make a fortune gaurantees that some one else will live in poverty. It's bad enough that people like you would support such a system, but to insist that those in peril would suffer even more makes you a low life.

once again? i dont know wtf youre talking about. the only system i believe in is freedom and individualism. you are allowed the freedom to make your own choices. 99% of the people that live in poverty do so because of bad choices. 99% of those that make a "fortune" do so because of sound choices.

you believe in a collectivist system where no matter what lazy ass stupid choices you make, youre not going to suffer from them. and even worse no matter what kind of sound choices you make, you are always doomed to share the same class as the lazy ass stupid wino.

but in the real world this means everyone suffers because there is no productive part of society to leach off of.
the so-called poor in this country live like kings compared to most countries.

so if anyone really cared about the poor, the last thing they would want is to turn to the country into a third world socialist cesspool.
yet you champion socialism on a daily basis.

[DwightShrute]

once again? i dont know wtf youre talking about. the only system i believe in is freedom and individualism. you are allowed the freedom to make your own choices. 99% of the people that live in poverty do so because of bad choices. 99% of those that make a "fortune" do so because of sound choices.

you believe in a collectivist system where no matter what lazy ass stupid choices you make, youre not going to suffer from them. and even worse no matter what kind of sound choices you make, you are always doomed to share the same class as the lazy ass stupid wino.

but in the real world this means everyone suffers because there is no productive part of society to leach off of.
the so-called poor in this country live like kings compared to most countries.

so if anyone really cared about the poor, the last thing they would want is to turn to the country into a third world socialist cesspool.
yet you champion socialism on a daily basis.

how can a person with a faireven a tinyany amount of common sense not agree?

[andywend]

Andy, I AM more compassionate than you, there is no doubt about that. I'm sure if I was paying huge taxes I would bitch and moan about it at the time but I wouldnt suggest having the poor kids rotting in the street to save possibly 1-2% on my taxes. You have to realize the majority of your tax dollars are going towards bailouts and pointless wars anaylze the amount of money Bush spent in Iraq (685 billion) and TARP (giving corporations 700 billion in welfare to make up for worthless overstated assets) vs the amount spent on food stamps each year (30 billion) and you'll see why your taxes aren't going down even if they eliminated social programs unless you consider public education a social program (I imagine you do) which would save 390 billion/yr, hopefully Bush's tanking of the economy will eliminate the rest of your retirement and you're job/business and you'll get the opportunity to live in the street while saving what's left of your 7.25 an hour job after expenses.

We have an elitist system of election that's why they get it down to two candidates and we decide between them, no one really votes in McCain or Obama, whoever the Democratic delegates chose this year was who was going to be President, they could've chosen Hillary/Kerry/Obama whoever and that was our next president. Given that I'm well educated and intelligent just unwilling to line the street with corpses of starving children I would hope the founding fathers would consider me worthy of voting. I don't really consider that compassion, it's not really to progress the poor out of the slums, the only way to do that would be to raise the minimum wage to enough where they could save money but then all the Republicans businesses would lose huge profits/go out of business and we get back to the socialist/communist you believe anyone with any humanity is.

Currently I dont consider the poor in this country any worse off than socialized countries which is why I'm fine with the current system, if you can look at the current results of wealth in this country and consider the levels of concentration evidence that it has been redistributed then you are insane, if it got any more concentrated and cut the social programs the country would be at high risk for revolt, so let's assume its in your best interest to not have your royalty/peasant system adopted anyway. I personally agree with one thing you've said I dont agree with adults leeching off the system, I dont get a dime from any social program, I accept that if I was flat broke I'd have to work or starve to death and that's fine but the children that are born into the slums do not have the opportunity to work and support themselves, what can you possibly expect of them? Are child labor laws too compassionate for you as well?

The fact that I have to liquidate all my assets and give them to the poor to show my compassion rather than SPEND OTHER PPLS MONEY as you've capitalized numerous times indicates you have no clue. The additional 1-2% estimated savings on your income taxes that are directed towards social programs (admittedly more if Obama's healthcare plan of trillions passes but I dont support that plan so ignore) is a far cry from expecting you to sell your house and car and give all the proceeds to charity. Would I be willing to donate 1-2% of my check to avoid seeing poor children living on the street starving to death the answer is yes, that's what I'm talking about here. Where does your 1040 ask you liquidate all your assets to give to the poor? The idea is dividing the burden to all Americans and knocking it down to 1-2% of the total annual income of the nation.

The truth of the matter is most Republicans don't have the ability to empathize with the poor bc they've never been poor, they've never been homeless or starving to death, if they ever did get in that situation their parents would simply take them back in or loan them money so supporting a program which benefits the dirt poor is naturally going to be declined bc as long as they're parents keep paying their mortgage and saving money they'll never be in a truly poor position. It would take a leap of intelligence for them to realize the luck they've had and how close they were to being born in the projects themselves and would they support starving themselves to death as kids to save Warren Buffet a couple percent on his taxes had that happened, I doubt it.

If starving children could eat on the spoken word, then perhaps I would agree that you are the more compassionate. However, since talk will ALWAYS be cheap (especially coming from the mouth of a blowhard liberal democrat), I have no doubt I am the more compassionate as I am confident that I not only donate more to charity on a strict dollar basis but probably by percentage of income as well.

Your "starving children" argument carries no weight unless you're willing to support FORCED birth control on all welfare receipents (something I strongly support) or believe the government should be allowed to take children away from those that can't or won't financially support them (something I also strongly support).

As long as the democrats continue to give INCENTIVE for welfare receipents to have more children, then this problem will NOT only never go away but will get much, much worse.

I agree with you completely on the bailouts being a complete and total waste of taxpayer money. However, your pinning these bailouts on Bush and the republicans as opposed to the democrats shows how clueless you really are. While the initial TARP plan was passed right at the end of Bush's 2nd term, the republicans fought it every step of the way and even flat rejected it the 1st time around.

On the other hand, the democrats not only strongly supported bailing out Wall Street but also added BILLIONS of pork bullshit to the TARP only to remove most of it in order to get republican support. Obama has taken the TARP and absolutely run with it bailing out everything in sight and adding TRILLIONS to our country's deficit with the help of a democratic congress who will do anything he asks.

What specifically did Bush do to tank the economy? As long as you're going to spout off your useless liberal rhetoric, I think you should be called on it.

As far as my retirement, the only thing that could jeopardize it is if Obama continues to waste TRILLIONS making the U.S. dollar worthless. However, even if that happened, I would figure out a way to make money once again as I have always been able to take care of myself as opposed to relying on my government to do it for me.

If you're so educated and intelligent, then how come you have FAILED SO MISERABLY when it comes to acquiring wealth?

Have you indeed liquidated your assets and given them to the poor as you claim? We both know that's not true as people like you will always be ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.

You don't want to divide the burden of taking care of the poor on all Americans. You want the rich to pay the vast majority if NOT assume the entire burden.

Make it a federal law that all welfare receipents have to submit to a tubligation for women and vasectomies for men and then we can talk about raising taxes to take care of the starving children. Lets solve the problem as opposed to doing what liberal democrats love to do which is throw money at a problem and hope that it fixes itself.

[Numenor80]

this should be gooooot

[Flying Dutchman]

Hard to disagree except " W the Anti-christ"
他不是一樣壞的，像您使他

I missed this one earlier...

...good one Dwight.