The Lazy Poor

[PoliticalChic]

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

By your abstruse definition, the attendant who laces up your straight jacket represents some sort of 'redistribution of wealth.'


When, oh when, will you realize that you have zero cachet?

and your a proven LIAR


Ill go get the thread

You know I never lie.

 

[Truthmatters]

more lies dont cover up your lies

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

if pc is dumb as a box of rocks why does she own you in every debate I read so far?

That would be indicative of your reading skills.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


I get the feeling that you resent any folks who have done better in life than you have.

Jealousy is debilitating to one's happiness.

Bulletin:
You never had to work for anyone else.

Never.

Check out the 13th amendment.


Good luck in your new endeavors.

As an either/or situation, I'd say that resenting the Rich is far less reprehensible than resenting the Poor.

Your resentment for the Poor is interesting. As an immigrant, is that something you acquired since you arrived here,

thinking it was part of how to be more 'American'?

1. Here comes another bursting of your imaginary bubbles!

Ready?

The is no perennial category known as 'the rich.'
It is a momentary snapshot in time.

It is a bête noire created to inflame covetous buffoons such as you.

a. "It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Feel like a fool?
Fitting.


2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Good.



Putting you in your place has become, it seems, my hobby.

No one but you defines 'poor' that way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since it appears that the otherwise anti-welfare state anti-socialism conservatives in this thread have unanimously conceded that our socialist educational system is acceptable,

what about healthcare for Americans regardless of their ability to pay?

Can you also accept that a socialist healthcare system is acceptable?

Or would you rather argue that one's health is not as important as one's education, or that one's access to healthcare ought to be directly proportionate to one's income/wealth?

"...anti-welfare..."

Where ever did you get that view?

Oh...your usual?
You simply made it up.


It seems that both you and your girlfriend snip off tiny parts of posts to attempt to prove some fib....


Example: I am a proponent of welfare.

a. To the poor

b. ...and not necessarily carried out by government.

You made up the bumper-sticker, didn't you.
Isn't that the truth?

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/291099-people-good-damn-it.html


PC just made a complete fool out of herself here

Your lies will NEVER be forgotten PC

Y'know....I'm really glad you brought that....

...I was wondering when you'd get around to agreeing with this part:

One more? OK...if all people are good, they would choose only the good to lead them. Doesn't that make sense? Imagine that an elected official had to vote on the following bill:
"If a baby happens to be born healthy, even though the intention of both mother and doctor had been to abort the child......
...let's make certain that swift medical attention is provided."

a. Kinda like what would be done in the case of an auto accident. If there is an injury...'good' folks would see that medical care is provided.....even if the injured party was a bank robber trying to escape....right?

b. But if that official decides not to agree to the procedure, and instead acts in such a way
that the infant is simply set aside to languish until it dies...

c. Is that official proof that people are "good"?

d. And, knowing of the official's view, e.g., that its children need not be "punished" by having to have a baby in the above situation....would any who voted for that official, in your view, be your "good" people?



That one really nailed ya'.....didn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

YOU are the NOT GOOD you see in your fellow man

Not good???

Heck, I'm great!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

By your abstruse definition, the attendant who laces up your straight jacket represents some sort of 'redistribution of wealth.'


When, oh when, will you realize that you have zero cachet?

I see you've chosen option #1 from my list,

to refresh your memory, that was the one involving your trademark sharp tongue and dull wit.

I would have won that bet.

I wish I could trademark that!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

if pc is dumb as a box of rocks why does she own you in every debate I read so far?

That would be indicative of your reading skills.

? you do know reading and comprehension is not the same right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


I get the feeling that you resent any folks who have done better in life than you have.

Jealousy is debilitating to one's happiness.

Bulletin:
You never had to work for anyone else.

Never.

Check out the 13th amendment.


Good luck in your new endeavors.

As an either/or situation, I'd say that resenting the Rich is far less reprehensible than resenting the Poor.

Your resentment for the Poor is interesting. As an immigrant, is that something you acquired since you arrived here,

thinking it was part of how to be more 'American'?

1. Here comes another bursting of your imaginary bubbles!

Ready?

The is no perennial category known as 'the rich.'
It is a momentary snapshot in time.

It is a bête noire created to inflame covetous buffoons such as you.

a. "It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Feel like a fool?
Fitting.


2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Good.



Putting you in your place has become, it seems, my hobby.

Are you aware that you also are nothing more than a 'snapshot in time'?

Thus by your 'reasoning', that would mean that you do not exist, as you said there are no 'rich'.

Which in a way would answer what is an often asked question around here...

...how can someone that stupid even exist!!???

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/291099-people-good-damn-it.html


PC just made a complete fool out of herself here

Your lies will NEVER be forgotten PC

Y'know....I'm really glad you brought that....

...I was wondering when you'd get around to agreeing with this part:

One more? OK...if all people are good, they would choose only the good to lead them. Doesn't that make sense? Imagine that an elected official had to vote on the following bill:
"If a baby happens to be born healthy, even though the intention of both mother and doctor had been to abort the child......
...let's make certain that swift medical attention is provided."

a. Kinda like what would be done in the case of an auto accident. If there is an injury...'good' folks would see that medical care is provided.....even if the injured party was a bank robber trying to escape....right?

b. But if that official decides not to agree to the procedure, and instead acts in such a way
that the infant is simply set aside to languish until it dies...

c. Is that official proof that people are "good"?

d. And, knowing of the official's view, e.g., that its children need not be "punished" by having to have a baby in the above situation....would any who voted for that official, in your view, be your "good" people?



That one really nailed ya'.....didn't it?

you lied again.


go get the quote of mine wehre I said that you lying sack of shit

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

One person's rocks is another person's diamonds.

 

[Truthmatters]

Most people are mostly good.

some are like saints.

some are complete ******* rat bastards like you

 

[Truthmatters]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

One person's rocks is another person's diamonds.

Nope diamonds are diamonds.


other rocks are not diamonds.

only a liar cant tell the differance

 

[NYcarbineer]

if pc is dumb as a box of rocks why does she own you in every debate I read so far?

That would be indicative of your reading skills.

? you do know reading and comprehension is not the same right?

If you want to defend PC's arguments in this thread, to extent they even exist, by all means do so?

You can start by convincing me that giving free education to poor kids at the expense of other taxpayers is not a redistribution of wealth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

more lies dont cover up your lies

The first one is.....????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The lazy poor are the one poverty group for which a central government must facilitate welfare services through guilt and manipulation of the rest of the populace. This is because taxpayers generally despise this poverty group because, no matter how expensive the welfare programs are, the lazy poor always want more. They depend on the pity of liberal politicians to redistribute wealth, so that they can get what they want with little effort and no personal responsibility.

These are the "I couldn't care less" poor, the 'refuse to work' poor, and those poor who claim welfare benefits as their 'entitlement.' Some politicians believe they are doing these folks a favor by addicting them to a government-subsidized life. These are people who will be forever impoverished: they have bought the lie that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, and, therefore, they can demand that Uncle Sam fuels, or at least feels, their pain.

The OP is truly a reprehensible individual, whether her ignorance and hate is willful or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

One person's rocks is another person's diamonds.

You have the same IQ as the average diamond.

Feel better?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As an either/or situation, I'd say that resenting the Rich is far less reprehensible than resenting the Poor.

Your resentment for the Poor is interesting. As an immigrant, is that something you acquired since you arrived here,

thinking it was part of how to be more 'American'?

1. Here comes another bursting of your imaginary bubbles!

Ready?

The is no perennial category known as 'the rich.'
It is a momentary snapshot in time.

It is a bête noire created to inflame covetous buffoons such as you.

a. "It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Feel like a fool?
Fitting.


2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Good.



Putting you in your place has become, it seems, my hobby.

No one but you defines 'poor' that way.

So....how do you define poor?

Or, am I correct in that you take your marching orders from the government?

 

[Truthmatters]

more lies dont cover up your lies

The first one is.....????

i havent known you all your life.

it likey started well beofre I saw your first post