I don’t get the narrative the Democrats are trying with old America

[bripat9643]

During the periods of inflation and recession during the Carter and Reagan years there were many stories about old people, stealing food and eating animal food.

Those were just stories. None of them were ever verified. they were leftwing bullshit propagated by turds like you.

 

[miami_thomas]

oh gosh.


Nevermind on any of the discussion we were having.

You deny there is an attack on the teaching of morals and the family? Maybe it is intentional maybe it was unintentional but at the end of the day it is happening. Democrats have been long trying to get church out of people’s lives. This is ok but you have to replace the moral education you lose when you do that with something else. If you are going to remove church, then you need to teach something like philosophy in its place. Then the introduction of welfare has helped to destroy families whether intentional or not. It has had that effect.

No, I'd assume that self-responsible parents don't need the church to teach their kids morals to begin with, and so the "point," to me, is purely bogus and the blame still lays squarely on the individuals - not the part(ies).

Your assumption would be incorrect as now that parents depend on the government to raise their children. The introduction of public schools has done more to destroy parenting and education than to help. It is no longer a privilege to go to school it is now a requirement. When you change something from being honored to get to do to something you have to do, people naturally don’t want to do and care less about it.

 

[G.T.]

You deny there is an attack on the teaching of morals and the family? Maybe it is intentional maybe it was unintentional but at the end of the day it is happening. Democrats have been long trying to get church out of people’s lives. This is ok but you have to replace the moral education you lose when you do that with something else. If you are going to remove church, then you need to teach something like philosophy in its place. Then the introduction of welfare has helped to destroy families whether intentional or not. It has had that effect.

No, I'd assume that self-responsible parents don't need the church to teach their kids morals to begin with, and so the "point," to me, is purely bogus and the blame still lays squarely on the individuals - not the part(ies).

Your assumption would be incorrect as now that parents depend on the government to raise their children. The introduction of public schools has done more to destroy parenting and education than to help. It is no longer a privilege to go to school it is now a requirement. When you change something from being honored to get to do to something you have to do, people naturally don’t want to do and care less about it.

I disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

They were doing it. Sure it was a battle but growing up is always a battle. But it was happening without government. You do realize the first black congressman was in 1868 and the first black senator was in 1870. The first black federal judge was in 1901. Those were long before the government got involved. Society grew up and that is why those things happened. It had nothing to do with the government and everything to do with the people in the government.

Learn your history. The black congressmen, senators and politicians were a result of reconstruction. They were forced on the people of the south and helped lead to the emergence of the clan. It had nothing to do with newfound liberalism in the south and everything to do with punitive reconstruction. Led to Jim Crow laws

After the Civil War we had 100 years to resolve the issue of blacks in America. Society on its own could not do it. It took a small group of protestors and the strength of the Federal Government to force the issue

Again if the majority had not wanted it then they could have removed the people from office and put people in that were pro-segregation.

You're wrong there. The federal government imposed those outcomes on the Confederate states. It wasn't the result of a vote fo the majority.

 

[Moonglow]

my GF and I are co-habitating.
We were able to get a mortgage and HE loan together. We have not sufferd b/c we are not married, quite the opposite. There are zero fights over money b/c her paycheck belongs to her and my paycheck belongs to me.

We split the bills amicably.

perhaps gays are better off in the long run not being married. Marriage is over-rated.

BTW, the state we live in has a law that prohibits co-habitation for unmarried heterosexual couples. It's OK for gays to live together however.

So don't tell me about how the poor gays are all that bad off.

Wait, unmarried heterosexuals cannot live together yet gays can? Where the hell do you live?

there are 7 states that have anti-cohabitation laws. Google it

you will never see libs bitching about it however.

I doubt the law is enforced.

 

[miami_thomas]

Unemployment is supposed to be controlled by self-sufficient entrepreneurs. Where's all the hard working risk-takers? Certainly not *not* taking risks because of Government & taxes, whereas they actually had testicles when tax rates were 90%? Amiright?

But the current uncertain times have businesses and entrepreneurs sitting on their hands. Many like to look and plan to the future but with all the uncertainty how can you? The truth is you can’t until the government gets its act in order.

The uncertainty is a heckuva whole lot of right-wing propoganda because they want a D out of office - meanwhile back in reality - life ain't all that different at ALL.

The propaganda is the statement that there are no uncertainties. You really think businesses are so stupid to just believe what people say. They actually pay attention to what is going on. They have no idea what is going to happen with taxes or an over 2000 page health care law. Nor the new financial regulations put forward. The problem with both of those laws is that they give the power to the administration to change on a whim. Then you have a ballooning debt that any intelligent person would know is going to create a great deal of uncertainty not too far down the road. Either an increase in taxes or further down grades in US debt. There is plenty of uncertainty without the need from propaganda.

 

[Moonglow]

During the periods of inflation and recession during the Carter and Reagan years there were many stories about old people, stealing food and eating animal food.

Those were just stories. None of them were ever verified. they were leftwing bullshit propagated by turds like you.

Well, I doubt I am a turd, and I doubt many are urban legends. Got anything else flaming troll?

 

[Moonglow]

They didn't have to pass laws. All they had to do was enforce the laws protecting people. Eventually society would have grown up past the point. In fact the majority of the country had already changed at the time the government had got involved. I guarantee you if most of the country was against it then the laws would not have been passed. They want you to think people need the government to do these things. And as you can tell by your response they got you believing it as well.

Really, so the gay have the right to marriage already?

my GF and I are co-habitating.
We were able to get a mortgage and HE loan together. We have not sufferd b/c we are not married, quite the opposite. There are zero fights over money b/c her paycheck belongs to her and my paycheck belongs to me.

We split the bills amicably.

perhaps gays are better off in the long run not being married. Marriage is over-rated.

BTW, the state we live in has a law that prohibits co-habitation for unmarried heterosexual couples. It's OK for gays to live together however.

So don't tell me about how the poor gays are all that bad off.

so a law breaker is telling me that it's okay to break the law. How nice, anything else.

 

[bripat9643]

During the periods of inflation and recession during the Carter and Reagan years there were many stories about old people, stealing food and eating animal food.

Those were just stories. None of them were ever verified. they were leftwing bullshit propagated by turds like you.

Well, I doubt I am a turd, and I doubt many are urban legends. Got anything else flaming troll?

You doubt it? Well, that's certainly convincing. . . . NOT!

Provide proof that anyone actually ate dog food because they couldn't afford people food.

In fact, I doubt you can produce proof that anyone every stole food.

 

[G.T.]

But the current uncertain times have businesses and entrepreneurs sitting on their hands. Many like to look and plan to the future but with all the uncertainty how can you? The truth is you can’t until the government gets its act in order.

The uncertainty is a heckuva whole lot of right-wing propoganda because they want a D out of office - meanwhile back in reality - life ain't all that different at ALL.

The propaganda is the statement that there are no uncertainties. You really think businesses are so stupid to just believe what people say. They actually pay attention to what is going on. They have no idea what is going to happen with taxes or an over 2000 page health care law. Nor the new financial regulations put forward. The problem with both of those laws is that they give the power to the administration to change on a whim. Then you have a ballooning debt that any intelligent person would know is going to create a great deal of uncertainty not too far down the road. Either an increase in taxes or further down grades in US debt. There is plenty of uncertainty without the need from propaganda.

the healthcare law is public. if they dont read and understand it, they are not being responsible businessmen. period. self responsibility.

as far as the threat of a couple of percentage points of taxes - anyone in business worth their salt is not sweatting that.


and lastly - the debt is a farce. it's not gone down in over 60 years. people were born, and died since then, entire lifetimes unaffected.

also - the creditors, aka buyers of the debt, are still buying. dummies? no. there's more than meets the eye, it's not as simplistic as : i have a million dollar credit card and only make 10k a year!! i'm teh dummeh!"

 

[miami_thomas]

Are you talking about slavery times or when the elderly were homeless and lived off cat food? Or some time in between? And can you name that time?

When it comes to Cuba, it's a matter of perspective. Better here doesn't mean "great" here. You can always make things better, but Conservative and Republican policies have ruined the economy and killed and maimed tens of thousands of young Americans for no reason even they can name. And their solution is to crush the middle class.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Again read other comments in regard to the dumb slavery comment. As far as homeless living off cat food that is just plain dumb. That has not been the case since prior to the 1920s. Charities and churches provide for the poor. There is no perspective when it comes to Cuba. It is a God awful place and the people there that are not in the government live in hell. When you always try to make things better you can make things worse. Sometimes you have to do less to make things better especially when it comes to Government. Government is the ones not to be trusted not some evil corporation. Government has always been the enemy of freedom not the deliverer of freedom.

Charities provide for the poor? Oh you people. What is wrong with you? One of the largest charity organizations in the world, the Catholic Charities gets 70% of their revenue from the government. Don't you guys ever read the links? And that info came off the Catholic Charities website.

Actually it doesn't surprise me. How many times have right wingers said, "I don't need to read anything, I already know the truth"?

Well, at least you admit that poor people were eating cat food. But the question is, "How many companies sold canned cat food before the 20's?" Not many if any at all. Therefore, it must have been much later than the 20's. Oops.

The problem with government providing for the poor is it creates dependency and a sense of entitlement. When it is a charity taking care of a person they don’t feel entitled and are not going to become totally dependent on the charity.

 

[miami_thomas]

do you see me saying Democrats are not involved anywhere?

congrats on a post not even involved in the discussion because you went all childish "hes a progressive, obviously" route.

I never assume anyone is progressive or conservative. Heck many don’t even know the true meaning of the terms. But the discussion was regarding corporations and I responded regarding corporations. What I said should have no bearing on your affiliation.

my point was - theyre perceived to have been "supposedly fighting," but in reality - no. Theyre all in pockets. It's out in the open.

So you believe that there is some corporation out there bent on taking over the world and killing everyone? A heartless building just bent on starving people and stealing from everyone?

 

[G.T.]

I never assume anyone is progressive or conservative. Heck many don’t even know the true meaning of the terms. But the discussion was regarding corporations and I responded regarding corporations. What I said should have no bearing on your affiliation.

my point was - theyre perceived to have been "supposedly fighting," but in reality - no. Theyre all in pockets. It's out in the open.

So you believe that there is some corporation out there bent on taking over the world and killing everyone? A heartless building just bent on starving people and stealing from everyone?

No, I believe there are individual Corporations paying off politicians to funnel laws in such a way as to benefit their businesses over all others in same said industry - hurting both the middle class, and small businesses.

 

[miami_thomas]

Learn your history. The black congressmen, senators and politicians were a result of reconstruction. They were forced on the people of the south and helped lead to the emergence of the clan. It had nothing to do with newfound liberalism in the south and everything to do with punitive reconstruction. Led to Jim Crow laws

After the Civil War we had 100 years to resolve the issue of blacks in America. Society on its own could not do it. It took a small group of protestors and the strength of the Federal Government to force the issue

Again if the majority had not wanted it then they could have removed the people from office and put people in that were pro-segregation.

You're wrong there. The federal government imposed those outcomes on the Confederate states. It wasn't the result of a vote fo the majority.

The majority of the nation was for it. The southern states were greatly outnumbered in population.

 

[rightwinger]

Again read other comments in regard to the dumb slavery comment. As far as homeless living off cat food that is just plain dumb. That has not been the case since prior to the 1920s. Charities and churches provide for the poor. There is no perspective when it comes to Cuba. It is a God awful place and the people there that are not in the government live in hell. When you always try to make things better you can make things worse. Sometimes you have to do less to make things better especially when it comes to Government. Government is the ones not to be trusted not some evil corporation. Government has always been the enemy of freedom not the deliverer of freedom.

Charities provide for the poor? Oh you people. What is wrong with you? One of the largest charity organizations in the world, the Catholic Charities gets 70% of their revenue from the government. Don't you guys ever read the links? And that info came off the Catholic Charities website.

Actually it doesn't surprise me. How many times have right wingers said, "I don't need to read anything, I already know the truth"?

Well, at least you admit that poor people were eating cat food. But the question is, "How many companies sold canned cat food before the 20's?" Not many if any at all. Therefore, it must have been much later than the 20's. Oops.

The problem with government providing for the poor is it creates dependency and a sense of entitlement. When it is a charity taking care of a person they don’t feel entitled and are not going to become totally dependent on the charity.

Why is it that poor people receiving money from the government makes them dependent but if they receive money from a charity they are not?

You are either receiving assistance or you are not

 

[miami_thomas]

The uncertainty is a heckuva whole lot of right-wing propoganda because they want a D out of office - meanwhile back in reality - life ain't all that different at ALL.

The propaganda is the statement that there are no uncertainties. You really think businesses are so stupid to just believe what people say. They actually pay attention to what is going on. They have no idea what is going to happen with taxes or an over 2000 page health care law. Nor the new financial regulations put forward. The problem with both of those laws is that they give the power to the administration to change on a whim. Then you have a ballooning debt that any intelligent person would know is going to create a great deal of uncertainty not too far down the road. Either an increase in taxes or further down grades in US debt. There is plenty of uncertainty without the need from propaganda.

the healthcare law is public. if they dont read and understand it, they are not being responsible businessmen. period. self responsibility.

as far as the threat of a couple of percentage points of taxes - anyone in business worth their salt is not sweatting that.


and lastly - the debt is a farce. it's not gone down in over 60 years. people were born, and died since then, entire lifetimes unaffected.

also - the creditors, aka buyers of the debt, are still buying. dummies? no. there's more than meets the eye, it's not as simplistic as : i have a million dollar credit card and only make 10k a year!! i'm teh dummeh!"

The problem is HHS can change the health care law at anytime. The law is not a law but rather grants power to HHS to decide what health care has to cover and cannot cover. There is nothing set in stone and prices can go up with no notice what so ever. Like say offering “Free Contraceptives”. That will increase insurance rates and therefore costs. Sure it seems free but it is just as free as telling auto insurance companies that they have to have minimum coverage. They didn’t pay for it we did.

A few percentage points what are you talking about. It is far more than that. On top of all the new taxes set to hit in 2013 and even when extended have only been extended for 1 year at a time. Then there is the debt and the tax increases coming will not even put a dent in the deficit. So yes uncertainty.

Just because we have always been in debt does not mean the debt is not the problem. If you truly believe the amount of debt we have is not a problem, then you sir are completely blind. Heck our interest is about to start eating up all our income. By the way, ask Europe about how debt is not a real problem.

It is as simple as that. We have a 16 trillion dollar credit card and the interest this year will be nearly 500 billion dollars up from 454 billion dollars last year. This is going to continue to grow and will just force us to borrow more money to pay just the interest. We are in huge financial trouble even the treasury and the fed said the debt is unsustainable. They have said it over and over again. This is not propaganda go look up the fed and treasury warning about the debt.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no marriage break with taxes. There is a marriage penalty instead.

TPC Tax Topics | Marriage Penalty

Married couples have the option of filing as two singles or married. Most choose to file as married because they save money

 

[bripat9643]

Again if the majority had not wanted it then they could have removed the people from office and put people in that were pro-segregation.

You're wrong there. The federal government imposed those outcomes on the Confederate states. It wasn't the result of a vote fo the majority.

The majority of the nation was for it. The southern states were greatly outnumbered in population.

The majority of the nation doesn't get to vote for the Senators and Congressman for the state of South Carolina, so what the majority of the nation wants is irrelevant.

 

[miami_thomas]

my point was - theyre perceived to have been "supposedly fighting," but in reality - no. Theyre all in pockets. It's out in the open.

So you believe that there is some corporation out there bent on taking over the world and killing everyone? A heartless building just bent on starving people and stealing from everyone?

No, I believe there are individual Corporations paying off politicians to funnel laws in such a way as to benefit their businesses over all others in same said industry - hurting both the middle class, and small businesses.

Exactly but the answer is not to create even more laws to handle it. We need to get laws off the books not add more and we certainly don’t need radical changes to the country from what it was.

 

[miami_thomas]

Charities provide for the poor? Oh you people. What is wrong with you? One of the largest charity organizations in the world, the Catholic Charities gets 70% of their revenue from the government. Don't you guys ever read the links? And that info came off the Catholic Charities website.

Actually it doesn't surprise me. How many times have right wingers said, "I don't need to read anything, I already know the truth"?

Well, at least you admit that poor people were eating cat food. But the question is, "How many companies sold canned cat food before the 20's?" Not many if any at all. Therefore, it must have been much later than the 20's. Oops.

The problem with government providing for the poor is it creates dependency and a sense of entitlement. When it is a charity taking care of a person they don’t feel entitled and are not going to become totally dependent on the charity.

Why is it that poor people receiving money from the government makes them dependent but if they receive money from a charity they are not?

You are either receiving assistance or you are not

It is a difference in mindset of the person receiving the charity. When someone is receiving charity they appreciate it. When they receive from the government they start to feel like they are entitled to it.