If you try to impeach Trump, the American people will not stand for it

[RealDave]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Well, dipstick, when you defund all public radio you are looking at ending funding for a classification of radio stations.

When you defund Planned Parenthood you defund a particular organization involved in Women's health.

in defunding PP, you are saying Medicare/ Medicaid, etc will no longer reimburse them for women's health services. You are one of the fucking morons who will prevent some women from access to birth control & then cry about abortions. You do know those two things are related?

A poll says 62% of Americans are against defunding PP. So why are you lying claiming most Americans want that?

Most of the people that voted for Trump want that, and we expect our representatives to give us what we want. Nothing wrong with that. It works the same way with your side. You people wanted government healthcare. Democrats couldn't provide you with that because if government took over healthcare, you wouldn't be able to sue your doctors or hospitals, and trial lawyers are one of the top contributors to the DNC come election time.

But they gave you Commie Care instead, and that was against our wishes. But you won fair and square, so you got to decide where our money was spent.

Don't act like there is something wrong with what we want, because we believe there are a lot of things wrong with what you want. I believe somebody on your side once said "Elections have consequences."

Most people did not vote for Trump.

Most people don't want PP defunded.

Single payer is like Medicare for all. It is not government healthcare.

Again for you to think it is OK for government to single out & penalize organizations that are legal just because you think it is against your pretend morality is really anti American.

Funding for PP is nothing more than vote buying in the first place. I'm against the federal government giving goodies to organizations that don't need it. Don't worry, PP will be just fine without my tax dollars and yours.

It's not a penalty, it's what Republican voters want. If we elect representatives and tell them we want X, we expect them to deliver X. Don't you believe that voters who's representatives are in leadership should get what they want? The Republicans have been giving us excuses for not defending the organization since they retook the leadership of the house back in 2010......2010!!!!!!

I think we waited long enough. Taxpayers should not be funding abortions. You want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

Taxpayers are not funding abortions.

But you might have been for years. Insurance companies include abortion coverage on some policies. When you buy health insurance, that money goes in a pool from which payments are sent out. Someone with the same insurance company has a covered abortion, your money helps pay for it.

Hell, the Republican Party offered abortion coverage to its employees fore years until about 8 years ago.,

I am really pissed my tax dollars end up helping to pay for Donald's dick pills.

 

[RealDave]

The desperation of the left is as pitiful as it is disgraceful. They simply cannot accept that the American people have spoke and President Trump is our president. They have tried to come up with every reason and engage in every tactic imaginable to get President Trump removed. The sad part is that he's only 5 months into his term. They are so fascist and so intolerant that they refuse to even give him a chance before resorting to desperate and idiotic tactics. This latest is a gem...

The Left's Insane Plan to Remove President Trump

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The desperation of the left is as pitiful as it is disgraceful. They simply cannot accept that the American people have spoke and President Trump is our president. They have tried to come up with every reason and engage in every tactic imaginable to get President Trump removed. The sad part is that he's only 5 months into his term. They are so fascist and so intolerant that they refuse to even give him a chance before resorting to desperate and idiotic tactics. This latest is a gem...

The Left's Insane Plan to Remove President Trump

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh really? Then why did Democrats have a Welcome Mat on or borders during DumBama's eight years? Those immigrants took jobs away from Americans, particularly lower skilled jobs that our poor people could do. A root cause of poverty is single-parent homes, and Democrats strongly supported that in the 70's and 80's to buy votes of women libbers. Drug and alcohol programs? Do you know who leads the charge for the legalization of marijuana?

How many poor Americans are willing to work as 16 hours per day in a field making less than minimum wage?

They won't. That's the point.

When industry needs workers, they pay the least that they can get away with. If they can't attract any workers, they increase their offer. That's how wages go up.

When foreigners come here (legal and illegal alike) they keep wages down by allowing industry to keep those offers lower. They accept those low wages and that brings down wages for everybody else.

My field of work is transportation. It's amazing how many foreigners are in trucks driving around on our highways without knowing a word of English. These trucks can weigh up to 80,000 lbs and they are driving right next to your vehicle on the road.

So they make money here and send it back home for their return. Cost of living is much lower in other countries, so they live like crap over here for a few years, then go back home to enjoy the money they made here; all along, keeping Americans out of work or at low pay.

It's time this all stopped.

Let me rephrase my question.

How many poor Americans are willing to work 16 hours per day in a field?

Nobody is working 16 hours a day in a field be it Americans or foreigners. But Americans will do any job provided the money is good enough.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh really? Then why did Democrats have a Welcome Mat on or borders during DumBama's eight years? Those immigrants took jobs away from Americans, particularly lower skilled jobs that our poor people could do. A root cause of poverty is single-parent homes, and Democrats strongly supported that in the 70's and 80's to buy votes of women libbers. Drug and alcohol programs? Do you know who leads the charge for the legalization of marijuana?

How many poor Americans are willing to work as 16 hours per day in a field making less than minimum wage?

They won't. That's the point.

When industry needs workers, they pay the least that they can get away with. If they can't attract any workers, they increase their offer. That's how wages go up.

When foreigners come here (legal and illegal alike) they keep wages down by allowing industry to keep those offers lower. They accept those low wages and that brings down wages for everybody else.

My field of work is transportation. It's amazing how many foreigners are in trucks driving around on our highways without knowing a word of English. These trucks can weigh up to 80,000 lbs and they are driving right next to your vehicle on the road.

So they make money here and send it back home for their return. Cost of living is much lower in other countries, so they live like crap over here for a few years, then go back home to enjoy the money they made here; all along, keeping Americans out of work or at low pay.

It's time this all stopped.

Of course, it is going to stop. The trucks will be driven by computers in the near future. Any job that is simple will be automated. Get educated or look forward to a life on the dole like most people that voted for the orange clown.

You won't see manless trucks in the USA in your lifetime. They can't even get the manless cars to work properly. I'll be long off this planet by the time they come out with manless trucks as a standard way of delivery.

 

[RealDave]

The desperation of the left is as pitiful as it is disgraceful. They simply cannot accept that the American people have spoke and President Trump is our president. They have tried to come up with every reason and engage in every tactic imaginable to get President Trump removed. The sad part is that he's only 5 months into his term. They are so fascist and so intolerant that they refuse to even give him a chance before resorting to desperate and idiotic tactics. This latest is a gem...

The Left's Insane Plan to Remove President Trump

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

 

[RealDave]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

I guess that is up to those who donate. Maybe the abortions are paid by those that get them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The desperation of the left is as pitiful as it is disgraceful. They simply cannot accept that the American people have spoke and President Trump is our president. They have tried to come up with every reason and engage in every tactic imaginable to get President Trump removed. The sad part is that he's only 5 months into his term. They are so fascist and so intolerant that they refuse to even give him a chance before resorting to desperate and idiotic tactics. This latest is a gem...

The Left's Insane Plan to Remove President Trump

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

Yes, Bush started with 17 million and ended in 27 million because of the housing collapse and economy. He was only President 20 days in 2009. Nice stretch though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

I guess that is up to those who donate. Maybe the abortions are paid by those that get them.

Then why would they go to Planned Parenthood if they can get them anywhere they wanted? After all, if you are going to get an abortion and pay for it, you can get it at your closest clinic.

 

[Flopper]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

 

[Flopper]

Far from it. Democrats typically support programs that attack the root cause of poverty, lack of job skills, poor home environment for children, drug and alcohol treatment programs, low wages, and creation of jobs for the poor all of which are vigorously opposed by conservatives.

Oh really? Then why did Democrats have a Welcome Mat on or borders during DumBama's eight years? Those immigrants took jobs away from Americans, particularly lower skilled jobs that our poor people could do. A root cause of poverty is single-parent homes, and Democrats strongly supported that in the 70's and 80's to buy votes of women libbers. Drug and alcohol programs? Do you know who leads the charge for the legalization of marijuana?

Most conservatives support programs that give the poor a good kick in ass, take away food stamps to starve them, close down government housing to put them on the streets, cut off financial support so they can't buy necessities. This reasoning is based on the erroneous believe that most people on government assistance are just lazy, ignoring the fact that most of the money goes to the elderly, sick and disabled, and single parent families.

Yeah, we did something like that in the 90's called Welfare Reform. And guess what? Nobody was out on the streets. Nobody did without necessities. In fact, the program was quite successful until it got watered down.

Yes, we need to cut down on government housing. When HUD people are getting homes in the suburbs instead of in the city where they belong, we are giving HUD way too much money. You want me to get up and go to work everyday to support you? Fine with me, but I'll support you over there--not next door to me. That's what I'm against.

The welfare reform of the 90's primarily limited the time one could be on welfare, and provided block grants to the states which has resulted in a lot more state money going into welfare. It did not cut into housing subsidies, medicaid, or food stamps. It was a minor cut compared to what Trump is proposing. However, what Trump has proposed is not going to make it through congress. Several Republicans members of congress have said it will be dead on arrive. In regard to Trump's budget, McConnell said, it looks like congress is going have to write the budget this year.

During the Obama administration, the number illegal immigrants in the US fell by more that a million. Obama deported more people than any president in history.

For the Republicans that don't want to make cuts, they will be held accountable at election time. Voters are already pissed that they didn't cut Planned Parenthood and other things we wanted. The RNC is walking a very fragile line, and they'd better wake up to the reality their voters are not happy with them.

Over 52 million people in the country are on some form of government assistance. That's pretty shocking but even more shocking is the number of people that would be effected if that assistance went away. That number is over twice that, brothers, sisters, parents, children, etc. When Uncle Charlie and Aunt Mary loose their housing subsidy where are they going to live? In my garage? When the no account drug addicted son in law losses his food stamps and TANF, he and his family are going to be in my living room. You don't think I would camp out on the doorsteps of my local congressmen if I thought the Trump plan had any chance of getting through congress? Don't think for a second that the people effected by Trump's plan would be just some Latinos in California. Every state, particular the Republican states in the Southeast would be hit hard which is why the Trump slashing of social welfare assistance is little more than a token jester to far right.

Well I say let's try it and find out. I would love to see the HUD people next door be forced to move back to the inner-city where they belong. They are noisy, wake people up in the middle of the night during the work week, have parties at their house........ trust me, if they had to move, I would have no sympathy whatsoever.

Kind of reminds me of a few months ago when I got off a highway ramp. Some lowlife was standing there with a sign saying money for food. He approached my truck and held the sign higher. I rolled down the window and asked if he needed food? He said "that's why I'm standing here!" So I brought up my shopping bag of treats that I have in the truck. I told him he was welcome to some snacks. I had Fritos, plain potato chips, and BBQ potato chips. I asked what he would like. He walked away to the car behind me.

Did you know panhandling is a recognized as a job category by the US government.

This reminds me of a story. I was in New Orleans a few years ago and was walking around Jackson Square and saw a really weird sight. A young blind man was standing in front of a small black coffin surrounded by a crowd. I thought, Oh My God, does he have a dead child in that little coffin? When I approached, I saw that it was a dog. The young man explained to the crowd that he needed money to bury his beloved dog who had served him faithfully for nearly 10 years and to replace him. He told stories about his faithful loving dog and the tears began to flow. I stood there transfixed on that dog. I could not believe this guy actually had a dead dog in a coffin out in front of Jackson Square. The crowd dropped there money in the coffin and moved on but I just stood there and watched. Eventually, the dog gave a big stretch and rolled over. The young man then explained to the few people remaining that his dog was dying of cancer and was expected to live only a few more weeks and the money he collected would help ease his suffering. I think most people knew it was a con but treated it as entertainment and gave him money anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

 

[Flopper]

What did Trump say to the media?

If you have to ask that, then you're not even qualified to take part in this discussion. Recuse yourself to another thread.

Or are you talking about that stupid comment on the bus when he was secretly being recorded? That's not the media.

I'm talking about the one-on-one interview he did where he said he was thinking about the investigation when he fired Comey.

Dems were calling for the head of Comey before the elections. Even bragged about getting rid of him...........

Now he's their Love Child for political convience..............Just agenda driven asshats.

It's all a charade, that no one should take too seriously. The government will run just fine for quite awhile without politicians. Every department, bureau, or agency is headed by professionals, who unlike the politicians understand government and their job and in reality make the operational decisions. The ass kissers at the top just nod their heads and try look like they really understand but of course they don't and they just follow the recommendations of the people that have been doing this stuff for years.

 

[Flopper]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

 

[Flopper]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

 

[Dragonlady]

Your side giving a bad example.

How so?

You wasted the country's time over a sex act. Then you look the other way when Trump talks about "grabbing pussy's". Now when faced with a growing mountain of evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, you stick your head up your ass.

Dying to see this growing amount of evidence. If the Democrats said they had a bridge for sale and you never seen it, would you still buy it?

We wasted the countries time over a sex act? You are wasting time over made up bullshit without an ounce of evidence to support it. At least with Clinton, we had a history of his inappropriateness, we had witnesses, we had a woman who sued him for his actions. Now what do you have against Trump again???

Oh, a sex act in the Oral Office is much worse than compromising our national security.

And you voted for Hillary who's server contained sensitive and classified information that a high school computer geek could have broke into. But that's fine with you because she's a Democrat, isn't it?

The woman didn't sue him for his actions. She wanted an apology for the false magazine article that she said slandered her by saying she gave Bill a blow job and she didn't.

Republicans convinced her to sue for sexual harassment and paid her legal fees. Her suit was dismissed "with prejudice" for lack of evidence. Republicans appealed the dismissal.

I don't recall anything about a magazine article. She was asked what happened by a reporter from some television show, and she told him what happened. It was Clinton that denied what she said, and he sent Carver out to slander her. Bill didn't have the balls to do it himself. She demanded an apology, but Bill was too above her for that, and that's when they went to find out if this was something Bill did repeatedly. That's what led them to Lewinsky.

Check your facts Ray. She was upset about a magazine article which said that a woman who worked for the state and whose husband was a state trouper, had given Bill a BJ. Even though no last name was given, Jones demanded a retraction and an apology. Republicans dreamed up the sexual harassment charge and funded her law suit.

The story was published by the American Spectator in 1994 and written by David Brock.

 

[Flopper]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

Planned Parenthood spends 76% of their budget on STI/STD and contraceptives. Although there is Medicaid coverage, that coverage varies by state. Also, it is not complete coverage either for testing or providing contraception. There are still millions of people with no insurance coverage of any kind. Planned Parenthood picks up what insurance does not cover.