Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.
Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.
Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.
Really?
What is the origin of parasitism?
Was it because you and your ilk hated to wake up early and earn a living?
.
Parasitism. You mean the shameless exploitation of workers by capitalists?
Excuse me ding dong
As you very well know , if you dont want to be "exploited" (wink, wink) by a capitalist, you can stay home and let the welfare state politicians take care of your ass.
Taxpayers/producers on the other hand cann not escape from the Internal Robbery Squad.
.
.
Or, you can do it the democratic way. You can let the government of the People decide that capitalists will be limited in their ability to abuse their employees.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.
For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?
You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,
which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,
are around today, relative to the population.
And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,
so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.
No problem.
Scribd
Read the article and get back to me.
Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.
Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.
Really?
What is the origin of parasitism?
Was it because you and your ilk hated to wake up early and earn a living?
.
Parasitism. You mean the shameless exploitation of workers by capitalists?
Excuse me ding dong
As you very well know , if you dont want to be "exploited" (wink, wink) by a capitalist, you can stay home and let the welfare state politicians take care of your ass.
Taxpayers/producers on the other hand cann not escape from the Internal Robbery Squad.
.
.
Or, you can do it the democratic way. You can let the government of the People decide that capitalists will be limited in their ability to abuse their employees.
A government of the people.........hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm, so Capitalists and free marketeers are not people? Only the parasites/socialists are people?
I f you don't like being abuse then you can live in abject poverty, learn a marketable skill and negotiate a good labor contract, and/or become a Capitalist.
.
Actually, I'm impressed with Obama. He's the first president to actually make a lasting REAL dent in the war on poverty. He did it in an ingenious way. Rather than get people out of poverty, he just put everyone IN poverty. That way, nobody could really care that much anymore.
Actually, I'm impressed with Obama. He's the first president to actually make a lasting REAL dent in the war on poverty. He did it in an ingenious way. Rather than get people out of poverty, he just put everyone IN poverty. That way, nobody could really care that much anymore.
I thank you for the chance to share my impressions of Romney's comments.
I was raised in the inner city somewhere in the Mid-West.
And I have come to a certain understanding of what Mormonism does for people. And I have also been involved with local politics and sales and marketing and scores of other professions. I've done stuff. I have an interest in different sports and all kinds of things. For years and years I had never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit. I know stuff. I've taken the oath of enlistment twice and would do it again if I were asked by someone I could trust.
Mitt Romney is a man who can be trusted.
He is a good and decent and honorable and accountable man.
(INSERT TEXT OF ARTICLE ROMNEY FINDS GAY DAUGHTER)
He was discussing strategy with his backers and potential backers who would not be inclined to donate six or seven figure sums to a POTUS campaign if their Candidate spoke of throwing money away trying to win the votes of Black folk who were never going to vote for him anyway. No matter how much money they threw at the Black community it would never match the value of the Federal Government's entitlements they get every month.
Month in. Month out. Always on time. Never fails. For generations.
THAT is what Ben Carson was referring to in the Black community as being as bad as slavery in a way. Generational welfare Mothers, Grandmothers (at very young ages) and Cousins and Sisters. All on Welfare and/or preggers. And unmarried. And with little more than a High School diploma, if that.
Anyway, we know that there are people, especially Obama's folk and Mormon haters who love to play up their supposed misunderstanding of what Mitt said and what it meant.
You all know he wasn't saying he didn't care about the 47% of American citizens. He was saying he wasn't going to waste these donor's dollars trying to win the Black vote.
Simple as that.
He is the most decent man you can imagine.
In fact, rather than Romney explaining to the media what I have just shared with you, he chose not to open up his donors to increased media scrutiny which would have come with a more finger pointing kind of man.
In 1976 Ford brought Bush back to Washington to become Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), replacing William Colby.[29] He served in this role for 357 days, from January 30, 1976, to January 20, 1977.[30] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations, including those based on investigations by the Church Committee regarding illegal and unauthorized activities by the CIA, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the agency's morale.[31] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy Carter both as a Presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of remaining in that position in a Carter administration,[32] but did not do so. He was succeeded by Deputy Director of Central Intelligence E. Henry Knoche, who served as acting Director of Central Intelligence until Stansfield Turner was confirmed.[33]
Other positions
After a Democratic administration took power in 1977, Bush became chairman on the Executive Committee of the First International Bank in Houston.[34] He later spent a year as a part-time professor of Administrative Science at Rice University's Jones School of Business beginning in 1978, the year it opened; Bush said of his time there, "I loved my brief time in the world of academia."[35] Between 1977 and 1979, he was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization.[36]
Actually, I'm impressed with Obama. He's the first president to actually make a lasting REAL dent in the war on poverty. He did it in an ingenious way. Rather than get people out of poverty, he just put everyone IN poverty. That way, nobody could really care that much anymore.
I thank you for the chance to share my impressions of Romney's comments.
I was raised in the inner city somewhere in the Mid-West.
And I have come to a certain understanding of what Mormonism does for people. And I have also been involved with local politics and sales and marketing and scores of other professions. I've done stuff. I have an interest in different sports and all kinds of things. For years and years I had never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit. I know stuff. I've taken the oath of enlistment twice and would do it again if I were asked by someone I could trust.
Mitt Romney is a man who can be trusted.
He is a good and decent and honorable and accountable man.
(INSERT TEXT OF ARTICLE ROMNEY FINDS GAY DAUGHTER)
He was discussing strategy with his backers and potential backers who would not be inclined to donate six or seven figure sums to a POTUS campaign if their Candidate spoke of throwing money away trying to win the votes of Black folk who were never going to vote for him anyway. No matter how much money they threw at the Black community it would never match the value of the Federal Government's entitlements they get every month.
Month in. Month out. Always on time. Never fails. For generations.
THAT is what Ben Carson was referring to in the Black community as being as bad as slavery in a way. Generational welfare Mothers, Grandmothers (at very young ages) and Cousins and Sisters. All on Welfare and/or preggers. And unmarried. And with little more than a High School diploma, if that.
Anyway, we know that there are people, especially Obama's folk and Mormon haters who love to play up their supposed misunderstanding of what Mitt said and what it meant.
You all know he wasn't saying he didn't care about the 47% of American citizens. He was saying he wasn't going to waste these donor's dollars trying to win the Black vote.
Simple as that.
He is the most decent man you can imagine.
In fact, rather than Romney explaining to the media what I have just shared with you, he chose not to open up his donors to increased media scrutiny which would have come with a more finger pointing kind of man.
Wow, thanks for that wonderful information on Romney. I learned somethings about him I did not know. But, as you know, even Obama has children he loves very much.
However, I know that Obama is a spook, and that what he does, he actually believes is the best thing for the nation. It doesn't change the fact that I disagree with what his wants to do.
Likewise, I am aware that Romney's views are the same as Obama's, their differences being only cosmetic. They are both globalists controlled by the globalist/corporate/industrial/financial/security state. This does the average American little good.
Romney might be the most decent man imaginable, but an American voter would have to be a sucker to vote for a someone who was endorsed by the former head of the CFR and the CIA. H. W. Bush is currently the head of the snake. Craaaazzy.
If you were Russian, would you vote for someone endorsed by Putin? Knowing the system is run by the KGB?
George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In 1976 Ford brought Bush back to Washington to become Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), replacing William Colby.[29] He served in this role for 357 days, from January 30, 1976, to January 20, 1977.[30] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations, including those based on investigations by the Church Committee regarding illegal and unauthorized activities by the CIA, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the agency's morale.[31] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy Carter both as a Presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of remaining in that position in a Carter administration,[32] but did not do so. He was succeeded by Deputy Director of Central Intelligence E. Henry Knoche, who served as acting Director of Central Intelligence until Stansfield Turner was confirmed.[33]
Other positions
After a Democratic administration took power in 1977, Bush became chairman on the Executive Committee of the First International Bank in Houston.[34] He later spent a year as a part-time professor of Administrative Science at Rice University's Jones School of Business beginning in 1978, the year it opened; Bush said of his time there, "I loved my brief time in the world of academia."[35] Between 1977 and 1979, he was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization.[36]
Note that for all her hysterical ranting against the programs in the War on Poverty, and all her ranting about how it's a failure,
PC will not say a word in support of getting rid of Medicaid, which is the biggest of the war on poverty programs.
Talk about a phoney. lol
Actually, I'm impressed with Obama. He's the first president to actually make a lasting REAL dent in the war on poverty. He did it in an ingenious way. Rather than get people out of poverty, he just put everyone IN poverty. That way, nobody could really care that much anymore.
I thank you for the chance to share my impressions of Romney's comments.
I was raised in the inner city somewhere in the Mid-West.
And I have come to a certain understanding of what Mormonism does for people. And I have also been involved with local politics and sales and marketing and scores of other professions. I've done stuff. I have an interest in different sports and all kinds of things. For years and years I had never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit. I know stuff. I've taken the oath of enlistment twice and would do it again if I were asked by someone I could trust.
Mitt Romney is a man who can be trusted.
He is a good and decent and honorable and accountable man.
(INSERT TEXT OF ARTICLE ROMNEY FINDS GAY DAUGHTER)
He was discussing strategy with his backers and potential backers who would not be inclined to donate six or seven figure sums to a POTUS campaign if their Candidate spoke of throwing money away trying to win the votes of Black folk who were never going to vote for him anyway. No matter how much money they threw at the Black community it would never match the value of the Federal Government's entitlements they get every month.
Month in. Month out. Always on time. Never fails. For generations.
THAT is what Ben Carson was referring to in the Black community as being as bad as slavery in a way. Generational welfare Mothers, Grandmothers (at very young ages) and Cousins and Sisters. All on Welfare and/or preggers. And unmarried. And with little more than a High School diploma, if that.
Anyway, we know that there are people, especially Obama's folk and Mormon haters who love to play up their supposed misunderstanding of what Mitt said and what it meant.
You all know he wasn't saying he didn't care about the 47% of American citizens. He was saying he wasn't going to waste these donor's dollars trying to win the Black vote.
Simple as that.
He is the most decent man you can imagine.
In fact, rather than Romney explaining to the media what I have just shared with you, he chose not to open up his donors to increased media scrutiny which would have come with a more finger pointing kind of man.
Wow, thanks for that wonderful information on Romney. I learned somethings about him I did not know. But, as you know, even Obama has children he loves very much.
However, I know that Obama is a spook, and that what he does, he actually believes is the best thing for the nation. It doesn't change the fact that I disagree with what his wants to do.
Likewise, I am aware that Romney's views are the same as Obama's, their differences being only cosmetic. They are both globalists controlled by the globalist/corporate/industrial/financial/security state. This does the average American little good.
Romney might be the most decent man imaginable, but an American voter would have to be a sucker to vote for a someone who was endorsed by the former head of the CFR and the CIA. H. W. Bush is currently the head of the snake. Craaaazzy.
If you were Russian, would you vote for someone endorsed by Putin? Knowing the system is run by the KGB?
George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In 1976 Ford brought Bush back to Washington to become Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), replacing William Colby.[29] He served in this role for 357 days, from January 30, 1976, to January 20, 1977.[30] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations, including those based on investigations by the Church Committee regarding illegal and unauthorized activities by the CIA, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the agency's morale.[31] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy Carter both as a Presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of remaining in that position in a Carter administration,[32] but did not do so. He was succeeded by Deputy Director of Central Intelligence E. Henry Knoche, who served as acting Director of Central Intelligence until Stansfield Turner was confirmed.[33]
Other positions
After a Democratic administration took power in 1977, Bush became chairman on the Executive Committee of the First International Bank in Houston.[34] He later spent a year as a part-time professor of Administrative Science at Rice University's Jones School of Business beginning in 1978, the year it opened; Bush said of his time there, "I loved my brief time in the world of academia."[35] Between 1977 and 1979, he was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization.[36]
So, assuming a logical progression, what is the end goal of these nefarious people and organizations?
Islam wants to make all heads bow toward Mecca or get a tax from those people.
What are these people and organizations CFR, CIA and whoever else, out to accomplish?
Actually, I'm impressed with Obama. He's the first president to actually make a lasting REAL dent in the war on poverty. He did it in an ingenious way. Rather than get people out of poverty, he just put everyone IN poverty. That way, nobody could really care that much anymore.
I thank you for the chance to share my impressions of Romney's comments.
I was raised in the inner city somewhere in the Mid-West.
And I have come to a certain understanding of what Mormonism does for people. And I have also been involved with local politics and sales and marketing and scores of other professions. I've done stuff. I have an interest in different sports and all kinds of things. For years and years I had never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit. I know stuff. I've taken the oath of enlistment twice and would do it again if I were asked by someone I could trust.
Mitt Romney is a man who can be trusted.
He is a good and decent and honorable and accountable man.
(INSERT TEXT OF ARTICLE ROMNEY FINDS GAY DAUGHTER)
He was discussing strategy with his backers and potential backers who would not be inclined to donate six or seven figure sums to a POTUS campaign if their Candidate spoke of throwing money away trying to win the votes of Black folk who were never going to vote for him anyway. No matter how much money they threw at the Black community it would never match the value of the Federal Government's entitlements they get every month.
Month in. Month out. Always on time. Never fails. For generations.
THAT is what Ben Carson was referring to in the Black community as being as bad as slavery in a way. Generational welfare Mothers, Grandmothers (at very young ages) and Cousins and Sisters. All on Welfare and/or preggers. And unmarried. And with little more than a High School diploma, if that.
Anyway, we know that there are people, especially Obama's folk and Mormon haters who love to play up their supposed misunderstanding of what Mitt said and what it meant.
You all know he wasn't saying he didn't care about the 47% of American citizens. He was saying he wasn't going to waste these donor's dollars trying to win the Black vote.
Simple as that.
He is the most decent man you can imagine.
In fact, rather than Romney explaining to the media what I have just shared with you, he chose not to open up his donors to increased media scrutiny which would have come with a more finger pointing kind of man.
Wow, thanks for that wonderful information on Romney. I learned somethings about him I did not know. But, as you know, even Obama has children he loves very much.
However, I know that Obama is a spook, and that what he does, he actually believes is the best thing for the nation. It doesn't change the fact that I disagree with what his wants to do.
Likewise, I am aware that Romney's views are the same as Obama's, their differences being only cosmetic. They are both globalists controlled by the globalist/corporate/industrial/financial/security state. This does the average American little good.
Romney might be the most decent man imaginable, but an American voter would have to be a sucker to vote for a someone who was endorsed by the former head of the CFR and the CIA. H. W. Bush is currently the head of the snake. Craaaazzy.
If you were Russian, would you vote for someone endorsed by Putin? Knowing the system is run by the KGB?
George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In 1976 Ford brought Bush back to Washington to become Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), replacing William Colby.[29] He served in this role for 357 days, from January 30, 1976, to January 20, 1977.[30] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations, including those based on investigations by the Church Committee regarding illegal and unauthorized activities by the CIA, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the agency's morale.[31] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy Carter both as a Presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of remaining in that position in a Carter administration,[32] but did not do so. He was succeeded by Deputy Director of Central Intelligence E. Henry Knoche, who served as acting Director of Central Intelligence until Stansfield Turner was confirmed.[33]
Other positions
After a Democratic administration took power in 1977, Bush became chairman on the Executive Committee of the First International Bank in Houston.[34] He later spent a year as a part-time professor of Administrative Science at Rice University's Jones School of Business beginning in 1978, the year it opened; Bush said of his time there, "I loved my brief time in the world of academia."[35] Between 1977 and 1979, he was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization.[36]
So, assuming a logical progression, what is the end goal of these nefarious people and organizations?
Islam wants to make all heads bow toward Mecca or get a tax from those people.
What are these people and organizations CFR, CIA and whoever else, out to accomplish?
Oh, you get me wrong, I don't think they are necessarily "nefarious." If you study the elites, they all have bloodlines and DNA going back to Charlemagne. And his family had direct descendents going back to the emperors of old in the Roman empire. There is not a single President that is not at least related by blood at least fourteen to sixteen generations removed. (Obama on his mothers side, the Dunhams.)
Much of our Republic is based on the old Republic. Likewise, much of it's symbolism in it's coat of arms, and in it's architecture. Do these patriarchal families mean evil? Of course not. What is the root of patriarchal? To parent.
Is Socrates Republic meant as a warning or an instruction guide? Well, I guess that largely depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Remember, the ruling families have children, feel love and all the emotions that you and I do. Nothing is black or white. There is no, "conspiracy." There are just competing interest groups and competing visions on how the future is going to look like. That vision is getting narrower and narrower with each passing year. If you have the right family and DNA going back centuries, blue bloods they call them, you are in good shape.
If you believed in the "American Dream," that Horatio Alger fairy tale that allowed a few families to come to American and get in to that club, and you watched that dream disappear around 1840, 1850? Or perhaps the 1960's? You are going to be sorely out of luck. The constitution is going to disappear in this brave new world.
The Muslims have always been useful pawns, but they are inconsequential and are really of no threat. If you believe they are, then you have been watching too much TV. ISIS, like Al Queda, is a product of the Western intelligence agencies. NONE of the middle eastern countries produces ANYTHING on there own. Well, except maybe Iran. But the industrial output of Iran is miniscule.
Even Iran buys most of it's military hardware from Russia and China.
All of ISIS's military hardware COMES FROM THE U.S.!!
I don't know why nobody gets that. Why? Israel, ISIS, Saudi Arabi? The whole middle east are pretty much pawns of these globalists.
The people at the CFR, the CIA, M16, the European Union, et. al. They all want the same thing that Napoleon, Bismark, Hitler, Caesar, and all the rest wanted. . . . to unite the empire. What is the ultimate empire?
The only nations that DON'T like the plans of the CFR are the BRIC nations. That would be Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Those four nations are why this plan didn't happen fifteen years ago. They like the idea of a global government and world socialism, everyone is on board with UN Agenda 21, but their elites just want a bigger seat at the table. Till then, the world will be divided and the people will ostensibly remain free. For now. . .
But mind this, when the whole thing collapses, when the economy is in ruins, when war starts, when it all hits the fan. . . It will have been planned that way from the start. And out of the ruins will emerge a one world socialist government order.
Actually, I'm impressed with Obama. He's the first president to actually make a lasting REAL dent in the war on poverty. He did it in an ingenious way. Rather than get people out of poverty, he just put everyone IN poverty. That way, nobody could really care that much anymore.
I thank you for the chance to share my impressions of Romney's comments.
I was raised in the inner city somewhere in the Mid-West.
And I have come to a certain understanding of what Mormonism does for people. And I have also been involved with local politics and sales and marketing and scores of other professions. I've done stuff. I have an interest in different sports and all kinds of things. For years and years I had never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit. I know stuff. I've taken the oath of enlistment twice and would do it again if I were asked by someone I could trust.
Mitt Romney is a man who can be trusted.
He is a good and decent and honorable and accountable man.
- In story of missing teen, Romney shows his human side ...
Washington Post Breaking News World US DC News Analysisromney.../gIQA1EENpR...
The Washington Post
Mar 3, 2012 - The retelling of how Mitt Romney dropped nearly everything to find a partner's daughter comes as his campaign aiming to show him in a softer ...
Anyway, he was discussing strategy with his backers and potential backers who would not be inclined to donate six or seven figure sums to a POTUS campaign if their Candidate spoke of throwing money away trying to win the votes of Black folk who were never going to vote for him anyway. No matter how much money they threw at the Black community it would never match the value of the Federal Government's entitlements they get every month.
Month in. Month out. Always on time. Never fails. For generations.
THAT is what Ben Carson was referring to in the Black community as being as bad as slavery in a way. Generational welfare Mothers, Grandmothers (at very young ages) and Cousins and Sisters. All on Welfare and/or preggers. And unmarried. And with little more than a High School diploma, if that.
Anyway, we know that there are people, especially Obama's folk and Mormon haters who love to play up their supposed misunderstanding of what Mitt said and what it meant.
You all know he wasn't saying he didn't care about the 47% of American citizens. He was saying he wasn't going to waste these donor's dollars trying to win the Black vote.
Simple as that.
He is the most decent man you can imagine.
In fact, rather than Romney explaining to the media what I have just shared with you, he chose not to open up his donors to increased media scrutiny which would have come with a more finger pointing kind of man.
That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.
For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?
You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,
which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,
are around today, relative to the population.
And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,
so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.
No problem.
Scribd
Read the article and get back to me.
Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke
You need to take Burke's advice PC. You really are embarrassing yourself by not paying attention. You are too busy spreading your lies and propaganda. This was debunked over 50 posts ago...
The War On Poverty Lost Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,
so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.
No problem.
Scribd
Read the article and get back to me.
Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke
You need to take Burke's advice PC. You really are embarrassing yourself by not paying attention. You are too busy spreading your lies and propaganda. This was debunked over 50 posts ago...
The War On Poverty Lost Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
$22 Trillion wasted, no decrease in the targeted problem...= failure.
You remain an 'i- squared'......and ideological idiot.
Step off.
Note that for all her hysterical ranting against the programs in the War on Poverty, and all her ranting about how it's a failure,
PC will not say a word in support of getting rid of Medicaid, which is the biggest of the war on poverty programs.
Talk about a phoney. lol
Why does that make her a phony?
She sounds like she is able to appreciate something which the Ameican people want and have come to count on.
How stupid would it be to even want to take it away from the people who want it and need it? However, that shouldn't automatically necessitate her following along to swallow Eboma's demon seed, (ACA) for the weakest of reasons...a foolish consistency.
Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.
Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.
Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.
You fool.
1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.
2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”
3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”
4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”
5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.
6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.
If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.
If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.
Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.
This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."
I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.
But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....
...carry on.
OMG he's so dumb. He thinks monarchies and dictatorships are "capitalism."
"statists"? You lost all credibility with that one word.
That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.
For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?
You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,
which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,
are around today, relative to the population.
And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,
so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.
I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.
Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.
Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;
on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.
$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...
What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?
Raise your paw.
You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.
How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?
And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,
so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.
I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.
Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.
Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;
on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.
$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...
What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?
Raise your paw.
You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.
How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?
Did I get an answer to this? No?
Can anyone help PC? She's been rendered mute on a key element of her own topic.
As much as I enjoy that, I'd much rather hear the conservative rationale for the ending of Medicaid.
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.
"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.
So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..
I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.
The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."
You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...
Politics
Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.
Sep. 13, 2012
In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.
Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.
Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.
"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.
So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..
I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.
The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."
You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...
Politics
Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.
Sep. 13, 2012
In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.
Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.
Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
