HitsRus;1149933 wrote:There are a lot of 'facts'...and if you don't think they can be easily manipulated to come to your predetermined conclusion....I suggest you watch Michael Moore's films. Oh, wait you probably have!

You prefer your own system to reach conclusions that is based on an absense of facts.

I'm not the one claiming 'correct' thought.

Tell me...should 'incorrect thought' be punished by the government?

HitsRus;1150007 wrote:I'm not the one claiming 'correct' thought.

Tell me...should 'incorrect thought' be punished by the government?

No, purveyors of speech that is
not in accordance with fact; that is wrong should not be punished by the government unless their speech is slanderous or seditious. The statements by their content have been shown to lack worth.

Good. I'd hate to see all those Democrats in jail.

HitsRus;1150029 wrote:Good. I'd hate to see all those Democrats in jail.

hopefully we will never live in a state that punished honesty and fighting for the rights of the 99%. so vote Democratic.

Does that 99% include the 'ignorant hicks' that were hoodwinked... or the 99% of the do-gooders who were hoodwinked by the dishonest claim that the Democrats are fighting for the rights of "99%" ...which really is more like the 49% who pay no taxes whatsoever and/or live off the chicken feed that their new masters hand out to them.

HitsRus;1150227 wrote:Does that 99% include the 'ignorant hicks' that were hoodwinked... or the 99% of the do-gooders who were hoodwinked by the dishonest claim that the Democrats are fighting for the rights of "99%" ...which really is more like the 49% who pay no taxes whatsoever and/or live off the chicken feed that their new masters hand out to them.

God this is nonsense. Paul Ryan spends more on 1 bottle of wine than TANF provides in benefits for a month. When you have 8% unemployment for almost half a decade our hodge-podge of a welfare state is going to expand and for 30 years the Republican consensus is that pursuing full employment is not a desirable policy choice with some republican congressmen even proposing eliminating the FED's duel mandate.

The worst is the shameful few you have of the poor and people who use these types of programs. 50% of new college grads are unemployed or underemployed. They are not lazy people who want to lay in a government provided hammock.

Governments across the world are engaging in massive macroeconomic malpractice and it has harmed millions of real actual people.

God this is nonsense

What's nonsense? I'm responding to the blatantly false political rhetoric and fallacy that is being purported by dishonest Democrats that Republicans are anti- poor...anti-women...anti-black....and whatever other 'war' they wish to drum up.
Aren't you tired of that crap? What does seem to be the case...is that you/they can't take what you/they dish out.

HitsRus;1150227 wrote:Does that 99% include the 'ignorant hicks' that were hoodwinked... or the 99% of the do-gooders who were hoodwinked by the dishonest claim that the Democrats are fighting for the rights of "99%" ...which really is more like the 49% who pay no taxes whatsoever and/or live off the chicken feed that their new masters hand out to them.

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes
. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]
These figures cover only the federal income tax a
“nd ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

HitsRus;1150315 wrote:What's nonsense? I'm responding to the blatantly false political rhetoric and fallacy that is being purported by dishonest Democrats that Republicans are anti- poor...anti-women...anti-black....and whatever other 'war' they wish to drum up.
Aren't you tired of that crap? What does seem to be the case...is that you/they can't take what you/they dish out.

Blacks, women and the poor know that the party of the rich is only interested in exploiting them. And that is why they in large numbers support the Democratic Party. They vote for the party that works most in their interest.

Blacks, women and the poor know that the party of the rich is only interested in exploiting them

and you sir are blatanly dishonest...and deserve being called to the carpet for the FRAUD you purport.

These figures cover only the federal income tax a
“nd ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay.

Wait a minute that's not a 'tax' LOL...it's sold as an insurance fund. These are contributions for their retirement!

what a bigoted attitude to claim that women, blacks and the poor are not able to know what party is serving their interests.

HitsRus wrote:which really is more like the 49% who pay no taxes whatsoever and/or live off the chicken feed that their new masters hand out to them.

And of course they pay taxes that go into the fund to make social security payments just as income tax goes to pay for F-16s and Drones. Plus they pay other federal taxes like the gasoline tax. Only 14% pay no federal tax.

isadore;1148651 wrote:It is very interesting to get the neo confederate rational for the Civil War from an advocate of the extremist interpretation of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. The Civil War was started when a group of
“very well educated and well placed” who thought their right to own other human beings was threatened roused a group of “ignorant hicks” to join them in their taking up arms against a popularly elected government. They were traitors.

In 1859 there was a group of individuals that advocated and put into action the "extremist" interpretation of the 2nd amendment. In a very bold manner I might add by going on the offensive. Were the followers that John Brown roused up ignorant (enter derogatory term)? Was John Brown and his band traitors for attacking the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry?

isadore;1149907 wrote:They would be more free starving to death? Providing a safety net for people does not ruin people's motivation. Providing that net and the supports to better one's self encourage social mobility not undermine it.

They wouldn't starve to death any more than those people not being fed by the government starve to death. I am not talking about a safety net nor motivation.

majorspark;1150434 wrote:In 1859 there was a group of individuals that advocated and put into action the "extremist" interpretation of the 2nd amendment. In a very bold manner I might add by going on the offensive. Were the followers that John Brown roused up ignorant (enter derogatory term)? Was John Brown and his band traitors for attacking the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry?

Brown was tried and hung. A black slave taking arms against the system would have justification. According to the Roger Taney Supreme Court he had no rights a white man need respect. He was chattel. He was far past the circumstances that justified our Revolution, “No taxation without Representation.” He had no right to participate in the system. On the other hand the Confederates were able to participate in the government system, had power and wealth. They deserved the fate of John Brown.

Con_Alma;1150436 wrote:They wouldn't starve to death any more than those people not being fed by the government starve to death. I am not talking about a safety net nor motivation.

Without food stamps and the other programs they would starve to death, or die of exposure. One function of our government is to promote the general welfare. Neither of those results promote it. Trying to live in our society without resources does not make you free. You may glory in the freedom of people starving on street corners in America, but that is not freedom.

isadore;1150475 wrote:Without food stamps and the other programs they would starve to death, or die of exposure. One function of our government is to promote the general welfare. Neither of those results promote it. Trying to live in our society without resources does not make you free. You may glory in the freedom of people starving on street corners in America, but that is not freedom.

More people eat themselves to death in this country than starve to death these days. Sad but true.

isadore;1150475 wrote:Without food stamps and the other programs they would starve to death, or die of exposure. One function of our government is to promote the general welfare. Neither of those results promote it. Trying to live in our society without resources does not make you free. You may glory in the freedom of people starving on street corners in America, but that is not freedom.

There's no glorification in any of my posts whatsoever. Your exaggeration for effect takes away from your position. I understand your opinion and respect it. I don't understand your suggestion that I have glorified my position in any manner.

I do not believe all the people on food stamps would starve. I believe a safety net is a good thing for our society. I also believe the magnitude of government aid and the length of said aid that's provided creates dependency. That's not freedom.

dwccrew;1150502 wrote:More people eat themselves to death in this country than starve to death these days. Sad but true.

It is true in the United States, but it is their choice to do it. And with the exception of anorexics and an occassional protestor starvation is not a willing choice. With anorexics its debateable.

Con_Alma;1150503 wrote:There's no glorification in any of my posts whatsoever. Your exaggeration for effect takes away from your position. I understand your opinion and respect it. I don't understand your suggestion that I have glorified my position in any manner.

I do not believe all the people on food stamps would starve. I believe a safety net is a good thing for our society. I also believe the magnitude of government aid and the length of said aid that's provided creates dependency. That's not freedom.

Well lets see, I guess we could do an experiment and suspend food stamps and study the effects to see if what you say is true. We could observe just observe how many American children are no longer obese but have traded it for the pleasures of the bloated bellies of the malnourishment.
Of course with welfare reform many benefits are time limited.

Who receives benefits.
the handicapped, the aged, children
It would make them more free if they did not receive benefits.

isadore;1150522 wrote:Well lets see, I guess we could do an experiment and suspend food stamps and study the effects to see if what you say is true. We could observe just observe how many American children are no longer obese but have traded it for the pleasures of the bloated bellies of the malnourishment.
Of course with welfare reform many benefits are time limited.

Exaggeration for effect. I have never spoken of obese children on welfare.

isadore;1150525 wrote:Who receives benefits.
the handicapped, the aged, children
It would make them more free if they did not receive benefits.

That's my point, they are not free. They are trapped and dependent on the government.

you consistently claim that providing for these people in need deprives them of freedom. That by feeding the poor we are involved in some scheme to enslave them. Hardly. And despite what you claim elimination of these programs will not increase our freedom, it will just increase suffering.

Con_Alma;1150537 wrote:That's my point, they are not free. They are trapped and dependent on the government.

Ok, lets take away the protections for the old, the handicapped, the children. Let them be what you consider to be free. The effect of that action would not be freedom but unbelieveable suffering on a monumental scale that would make a lie of any claim to America being a humane nation.