The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[RDD_1210]

That was what "wealth redistribution" referred to. Thought you'd catch that.

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

You're rather stupid, aren't you?
Liberals always want to spend other people's money, is not the same as liberals only want to spend other people's money.
Get an adult to explain the difference.

Are you an adult?

Explain it to me

 

[Claudette]

But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?

And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.

I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?

The difference between charity and forcing someone to give charity.

Of course the left thinks everyone should be overjoyed to support the non producers. They can't fathom that folks might want to pick and choose the charities they support.

They have a problem with you if you don't want to assume the burden of caring for all those poor and downtrodden.

Of course one day they will run out of other peoples money. Should be interesting when that happens..

 

[RDD_1210]

That was what "wealth redistribution" referred to. Thought you'd catch that.

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

"Liberals want to spend other peoples' money" has become a cliche because there is undeniable truth to it. If they were only interested in spending their own money, they'd simply do it themselves (and have complete control over how it's spent).

In the future remind me to not respond to you, since you refuse to answer anything honestly. "It's a cliche because it's true" is one of the laziest POS answers you could have possibly given. Well done, be proud of yourself.

 

[Dick Tuck]

 

[GuyPinestra]

We can disagree how then money should be spent. But the argument that liberals just want to spend other peoples money is the tired cliche, when I clearly just showed that. Try to stick to the topic.



Where did I say charity isn't happening? I said it's not happening on the scale that is needed to help those that truly need it. Again, reading comprehension would help you to actually understand what I am saying and not what you think I am saying. Try again.


LOL, talk about tired cliches! Thanks!

You can call it a fried egg sandwich if you like, but it is most definitely a fact. I've done volunteer work for over 30 years, and the ratio of Cons to Libs runs AT LEAST 10-1. If you don't like the 'scale', get off your ass and DO SOMETHING about it.

LOL, so you're not different than DBlack or any of the others. You ignore the entire post that you have no reply to and then nitpick one part, which was still a worthless reply.

Newsflash! Guy Pinestra did his own scientific poll and it's officially now 10-1 that conservatives are more generous than liberals. LOL.

Debating you idiots is way too easy, you basically give up within 2 posts.

Listen numbnutz, you don't get to decide what i respond to, and your butthurt whining isn't going to make a damned bit of difference. Charity was NEVER supposed to be the job of government, so please stop trying to make it so.

If you feel that more needs to be done to help the poor, get off your lazy, liberal ass and DO SOMETHING. That's what grown-ups do, start acting like one.

And until you put your fat, lazy, liberal ass in a soup line or on a Habitat job, you'll have NO IDEA how accurate my statement is. Of course, you'd rather remain ignorant, sweating is for the peons, right?

 

[RDD_1210]

And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.

I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?

The difference between charity and forcing someone to give charity.

Of course the left thinks everyone should be overjoyed to support the non producers. They can't fathom that folks might want to pick and choose the charities they support.

They have a problem with you if you don't want to assume the burden of caring for all those poor and downtrodden.

Of course one day they will run out of other peoples money. Should be interesting when that happens..

"Non producers", "other peoples money", it's almost as if you took this statement directly out of the conservative handbook.

The Republican party should rename itself to the "Hypocritical Cliche Party"

 

[dblack]

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

"Liberals want to spend other peoples' money" has become a cliche because there is undeniable truth to it. If they were only interested in spending their own money, they'd simply do it themselves (and have complete control over how it's spent).

In the future remind me to not respond to you, since you refuse to answer anything honestly. "It's a cliche because it's true" is one of the laziest POS answers you could have possibly given. Well done, be proud of yourself.

Or, you could just explain why it's not true. You haven't done that yet.

 

[RDD_1210]

You can call it a fried egg sandwich if you like, but it is most definitely a fact. I've done volunteer work for over 30 years, and the ratio of Cons to Libs runs AT LEAST 10-1. If you don't like the 'scale', get off your ass and DO SOMETHING about it.

LOL, so you're not different than DBlack or any of the others. You ignore the entire post that you have no reply to and then nitpick one part, which was still a worthless reply.

Newsflash! Guy Pinestra did his own scientific poll and it's officially now 10-1 that conservatives are more generous than liberals. LOL.

Debating you idiots is way too easy, you basically give up within 2 posts.

Listen numbnutz, you don't get to decide what i respond to, and your butthurt whining isn't going to make a damned bit of difference. Charity was NEVER supposed to be the job of government, so please stop trying to make it so.

If you feel that more needs to be done to help the poor, get off your lazy, liberal ass and DO SOMETHING. That's what grown-ups do, start acting like one.

And until you put your fat, lazy, liberal ass in a soup line or on a Habitat job, you'll have NO IDEA how accurate my statement is. Of course, you'd rather remain ignorant, sweating is for the peons, right?

LOL, let those true colors shine through Hoss. I'm pretty sure you just repeated your last post, except you forgot to include those sweet stats that you clued me in on last time. I'm fat and lazy though, you've got me pegged pretty good. Bravo good sir, bravo.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems have no problem volunteering the helping hand of taxpayer money

They are very generous with money tax payer could otherwise for their own families

That's compassion

 

[RDD_1210]

"Liberals want to spend other peoples' money" has become a cliche because there is undeniable truth to it. If they were only interested in spending their own money, they'd simply do it themselves (and have complete control over how it's spent).

In the future remind me to not respond to you, since you refuse to answer anything honestly. "It's a cliche because it's true" is one of the laziest POS answers you could have possibly given. Well done, be proud of yourself.

Or, you could just explain why it's not true. You haven't done that yet.

Sure I have, but you ignored it. Remember?

Liberals pay taxes, so liberals have just as much a right to voice their opinion on where taxes should be spent. Feel free to show me anywhere that liberals have stated, "we want conservative tax revenues to be spent in this way......".

My only question is, which part of this post will you ignore. Hmmmm.

 

[Fordsflylow]

"Non producers", "other peoples money", it's almost as if you took this statement directly out of the conservative handbook.

The Republican party should rename itself to the "Hypocritical Cliche Party"

That's a for sure!! I'd add to it warped con sheep "supposed" minds repeating lies, half-truths, misleading bs, etc fed to them via other hate-mongering con's with an agenda that benefits their minority.

 

[Seawytch]

What I find interesting is that Christians will argue laws based on their personal moral code. Things like gay marriage or abortion are perfectly fine to be legislated based on their religious beliefs. Try to legislate helping the poor or the sick and these same people pitch a fit and fall into it. Weird.

Oh, and just an "FYI", when it comes to the poor, charity isn't enough.

 

[GuyPinestra]

In the future remind me to not respond to you, since you refuse to answer anything honestly. "It's a cliche because it's true" is one of the laziest POS answers you could have possibly given. Well done, be proud of yourself.

Or, you could just explain why it's not true. You haven't done that yet.

Sure I have, but you ignored it. Remember?

Liberals pay taxes, so liberals have just as much a right to voice their opinion on where taxes should be spent. Feel free to show me anywhere that liberals have stated, "we want conservative tax revenues to be spent in this way......".

My only question is, which part of this post will you ignore. Hmmmm.

Feel free to show me where spending tax money on charity is a Constitutionally-authorized activity....

 

[dblack]

Sure I have, but you ignored it. Remember?

Liberals pay taxes, so liberals have just as much a right to voice their opinion on where taxes should be spent. Feel free to show me anywhere that liberals have stated, "we want conservative tax revenues to be spent in this way......".

My only question is, which part of this post will you ignore. Hmmmm.

The nature of the democratic state is that the majority, via the representative process, decides what the rules will be. This pretty much always means that government will against the will of the minority. In many cases, this kind of conformity is required. We don't want to let people "decide for themselves" whether it's ok to steal and murder, for example.

But this power should only be used in cases where letting people decide for themselves is truly intolerable. Deciding who deserves our charity and who doesn't isn't one of those cases. Declaring it to be such, taking the decision of who to help and when away from the individual, is truly "spending other people's money". Not sure how you get around that.

 

[007]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

It's difficult to imagine IndepentOfLogic being more trite or any dumber unless he has some kind of mind meld with TdM.

The poor deluded sap cannot quite grasp that President Obama's answer to the complicated and inter-related economic problems is to borrow more money and spend yet more than that.

In the sycophantic tiny mind of nitwits like IndependentOfLogic, THAT'S the thing that will "work."

Well Liability, the board bubble heads are in here having a circle butt pat all drunk on their intellectually retarded, leftist hack diatribe, and you're going to spoil it.

 

[Nosmo King]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

The 'logic' actually sounds something like this:

The "Free" Market will eventually take care of everything. Once those with means are 'unshackled' from their obligation to fund the government, they and they alone will determine that jobs need to be created. The old school thought that DEMAND creates jobs is passé. Only lower taxes on the wealthy can possibly 'create' jobs. Meanwhile, the less advantaged can stick to their obligation to the government and give up their sons and daughters to fight in wars to be determined by the Conservative political leadership.

If someone falls through the holes in the illegal and unconstitutional safety net established by evil Liberals, why it's their own fault for not working harder. Those lazy people unemployed after they over strained the market with their demands for living wages are left to fend for themselves, even at the expense of the larger society. Education, housing, food and medicine are things best left provided by the individual and not government in any circumstance. That way, the poorest among us will learn the valuable lessons that they should work harder.

Meanwhile, the very richest among us should, according to "free" market circumstances, be rewarded for taking risks with other people's money. Even if those risks fail, their bonuses should not be questioned as they are the smartest, wisest and most reliable donors, er, ah, members of society.

For you see, a strong, vibrant middle class providing the consumer spending that drives demand and therefore the job market is just a tax cut for the wealthy away from happening.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What I find interesting is that Christians will argue laws based on their personal moral code. Things like gay marriage or abortion are perfectly fine to be legislated based on their religious beliefs. Try to legislate helping the poor or the sick and these same people pitch a fit and fall into it. Weird.

Oh, and just an "FYI", when it comes to the poor, charity isn't enough.

Mark 14:7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

 

[RDD_1210]

Or, you could just explain why it's not true. You haven't done that yet.

Sure I have, but you ignored it. Remember?

Liberals pay taxes, so liberals have just as much a right to voice their opinion on where taxes should be spent. Feel free to show me anywhere that liberals have stated, "we want conservative tax revenues to be spent in this way......".

My only question is, which part of this post will you ignore. Hmmmm.

Feel free to show me where spending tax money on charity is a Constitutionally-authorized activity....

Feel free to show me where you denounced the action of rape. See, now we both moved the goal posts.

 

[Fordsflylow]

You poor con's have it so rough. lol Do you all post ANYTHING worthy of reading, or is it non-stop stabs, hate, etc.?

 

[Seawytch]

What I find interesting is that Christians will argue laws based on their personal moral code. Things like gay marriage or abortion are perfectly fine to be legislated based on their religious beliefs. Try to legislate helping the poor or the sick and these same people pitch a fit and fall into it. Weird.

Oh, and just an "FYI", when it comes to the poor, charity isn't enough.

Mark 14:7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

And? What has that to do with what I said? Jesus didn't live in a Democracy. If Jesus could have voted, do you think he would have voted to help the poor and the sick?