Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Markle]

Your claim that students were kicked out to make room for the Obama girls is laughable...more rightwing hate propaganda

Comprehension is just not one of your strong suits, is it?

Where did I make the statement you allege I made above?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would have to disagree with known facts that liberals had a monopoly on lying till 1987 in the media when the fairness doctrine ended.... The Republicans and the right wing media have a long way to go to catch up.
.

Give me 3 liberal lies.

You can keep your doctor.

Bush stole 2000 election.

Bush stole 2004 election.

Bush lied to get us into war.

Republicans want dirty air, water, starve children, starve the elderly.

There is a few, you can have lots more. Neither party is immune to lies.

I kept my doctor

I kept my barber too, but I paid directly for her like you did with your doc.

It's almost like the way to get things they way you want them is to do things for yourself, or something.

 

[hadit]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Staying with that analogy, you pull the drowning man out of the surf, but you don't proceed to build walls around the ocean and a wading pool so he can play without fearing the waves. We don't want a safety net to just catch people and leave them there, we want a trampoline to bounce them back into productivity so they can again provide for themselves. That's the difference between the modern liberal and conservative approach. The conservative approach wants to see more people off assistance and able to provide for themselves while the liberal approach seems to desire more people dependent on assistance.

 

[hadit]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

"Sometimes need a bit of help". Great. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But, let's look at this logically. Who makes the case that someone has been helped a lot and should now provide for themselves? Who makes the case that it's cruel to make someone provide for themselves? A case in point, what happens when unemployment benefits run out after 2 years? Modern conservatives say that people should take what work they can find, while "liberals" say that we should keep extending those benefits ad infinitum.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

"Sometimes need a bit of help". Great. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But, let's look at this logically. Who makes the case that someone has been helped a lot and should now provide for themselves? Who makes the case that it's cruel to make someone provide for themselves? A case in point, what happens when unemployment benefits run out after 2 years? Modern conservatives say that people should take what work they can find, while "liberals" say that we should keep extending those benefits ad infinitum.

I look at it as give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.....Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what do you do when there are no fish left in the pond?


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, well, you HOLD a debate for people to attempt to "win" by MAKING a point, rather than expressing an opinion. Since I know you're a leftist, let me further explain: YOUR OPINION IS NOT A POINT. You know what the old cliche says opinions are like, right?

You know that door swings both ways. If you want to get in to it and see which one can prove their "opinion" better than the other, I'm right here. More succinctly, I can name more republican lies than you can name democrat lies.

I understand if you don't have the stones to do that.

Yeah, Sparkles, you just keep telling yourself THAT'S how reality is.

Seriously, though, does that "shouting at the universe to make it reform and suit me" thing you lefties do ever actually work?

 

[hadit]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

At least in our country, political parties wish to expand their tent. Government dependents vote Democrat. So the more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters come election time. It only makes sense for Democrat politicians to create more government dependents.

Its bollox Ray. Very few people want to be dependent on handouts. Its a myth.

That is likely true on this side of dependency. Remember we're talking about DEPENDING on something. A lot of people may detest being dependent but feel that it's the easiest, and maybe the only, solution.

My wife just had a knee replacement. She received a pair of crutches when she came home from the hospital and is expected to straighten and flex the new knee to prevent stiffness and gain mobility. She is also expected to stop using the crutches and walk normally. Doing that hurts, a lot. Now, she could stay dependent on the crutches and avoid that pain, but she wouldn't be able to walk normally.

 

[hadit]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

"Sometimes need a bit of help". Great. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But, let's look at this logically. Who makes the case that someone has been helped a lot and should now provide for themselves? Who makes the case that it's cruel to make someone provide for themselves? A case in point, what happens when unemployment benefits run out after 2 years? Modern conservatives say that people should take what work they can find, while "liberals" say that we should keep extending those benefits ad infinitum.

I look at it as give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.....Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what do you do when there are no fish left in the pond?


.

Then you're living in a socialist hell hole where regulations and high minimum wages have destroyed the low paying jobs that give you an entrance back into the work force, or can generate a small amount of income while you're trying to get back into your career.

Here's the reality. In America, you don't have to be dependent on a job someone else provides you. You can, with persistence and hard work, generate income outside of a regular job. It's not easy, but it can be done.

 

[hadit]

So why does the CEO of a volunteer organization deserve a salary seven times the amount of a typical government executive?

Simple, they're not working for the government and whose business is it besides the CEO and the organization for whom they work?

It is the business of those trying to justify why charities are superior to government welfare

No it isn't. Charities don't take money out of donors paychecks by force. Unlike the government.

The government is...us

And WE voted both Obama and Trump into office.

 

[hadit]

Simple, they're not working for the government and whose business is it besides the CEO and the organization for whom they work?

It is the business of those trying to justify why charities are superior to government welfare

No it isn't. Charities don't take money out of donors paychecks by force. Unlike the government.

The government is...us

Why don't you make your democratic politicians pay their taxes? You know...Instead of whining about the salaries of the CEO's of charities you don't support?

Let's start with making our President pay taxes and reveal his foreign investments and deductions

He already pays taxes. Perhaps you missed that one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it. That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

Why would anyone want religion in their school?

That is why you have churches

For the most part, schools are locally funded. If locals want to spend their money on schools that teach religion, then why should they not have a school that has religion as a course of study?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Because of the first amendment

Can schools teach there is no god and that Jesus was made up?

That is teaching religion in schools

I would say that if most people of that school district held that belief, why not? It's their money.

Probably because that's not what school is about. There's a reason governments around the world started to implement mass education, and force kids to go to school. You can see why if you go to certain places in Africa where kids don't go to school and see what the impact is. Society has decided that society is much better when people receive a certain level of education. Going into school and learning make belief really doesn't help to develop the country.

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Truth is, if I were ever dumb enough to move to one of the mega-cities, I would be looking around for a nice, private religious school for my kid. Wouldn't even have to be my church; would just need to be a religion that teaches about virtue and moral behavior. Jewish schools and Chinese schools where everyone's Buddhist would be just fine with me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it.

If it was "in the law" that "you couldn't keep your doctor", then it turns out, you couldn't keep your doctor, that's not a lie. It is my understanding, that they were telling people they "could keep their doctor", which could've been wishful thinking, being naive, or just wrong. But a deliberate lie, I don't think so. A deliberate lie is Trump saying everyone will be insured. That's a lie!

That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

Stop right there. "Selling point" was the term you used. I was using your term, to make my point.

I do have to ask you this though. Is using something untrue to get people to go along with it just a selling point for democrats? That doesn't count as a lie?

Only if they knew it was untrue at the time they were saying it. If they didn't know, for whatever reason, that's not a lie, that's just being wrong.

Once again. This selling point you are calling it was bullshit. How is this not trying to deceive.

Again, "selling point" was your term. You introduced this into the discussion, not me. And again, it is not a deception if they were under the impression you could keep your doctor. Once the exchanges got up to speed and it turns out for some they couldn't keep their doctor, that's just how things turned out.

As you have set the definition.

It's not my definition, it's THE definition for anyone who wasn't home schooled.

lie:
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive​

That is the crux of the problem. It was NEVER in the law. It was just in the campaign promises. Hence, a lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Staying with that analogy, you pull the drowning man out of the surf, but you don't proceed to build walls around the ocean and a wading pool so he can play without fearing the waves. We don't want a safety net to just catch people and leave them there, we want a trampoline to bounce them back into productivity so they can again provide for themselves. That's the difference between the modern liberal and conservative approach. The conservative approach wants to see more people off assistance and able to provide for themselves while the liberal approach seems to desire more people dependent on assistance.

Exactly! Conservatives measure compassion by how many people DON'T NEED it any more.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it. That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

Because of the first amendment

Can schools teach there is no god and that Jesus was made up?

That is teaching religion in schools

I would say that if most people of that school district held that belief, why not? It's their money.

Probably because that's not what school is about. There's a reason governments around the world started to implement mass education, and force kids to go to school. You can see why if you go to certain places in Africa where kids don't go to school and see what the impact is. Society has decided that society is much better when people receive a certain level of education. Going into school and learning make belief really doesn't help to develop the country.

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Global Warming isn't a religion, it doesn't have a church.

I agree that teaching should stick to facts and try and get kids to instill skills in kids, but there's a massive difference between teaching something that is accepted by the scientific community in the most part, and religion, which everyone should know has been made up.

Personally I'm a believer that kids should grow up with education that has nothing to do with religion. If you grow up in a Jewish area and there happen to be more Jews in the area, you still go to a school that teaches things similar to the schools in other areas.

So what's the difference between teaching kids about man made global warming and religion? Both are subjects that have no absolute proof of their existence. So some scientists think GB is real, but those are the same scientists that get their paychecks from government just like the teachers.

If you want to learn about religion, keep it out of school and go to church. Okay. If you want to learn about global warming, don't teach it in school,, just go to some leftist whacko march instead.

There's lots of difference, but you know that anyway, this isn't a debate on global warming.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it. That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

For the most part, schools are locally funded. If locals want to spend their money on schools that teach religion, then why should they not have a school that has religion as a course of study?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Because of the first amendment

Can schools teach there is no god and that Jesus was made up?

That is teaching religion in schools

I would say that if most people of that school district held that belief, why not? It's their money.

Probably because that's not what school is about. There's a reason governments around the world started to implement mass education, and force kids to go to school. You can see why if you go to certain places in Africa where kids don't go to school and see what the impact is. Society has decided that society is much better when people receive a certain level of education. Going into school and learning make belief really doesn't help to develop the country.

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Truth is, if I were ever dumb enough to move to one of the mega-cities, I would be looking around for a nice, private religious school for my kid. Wouldn't even have to be my church; would just need to be a religion that teaches about virtue and moral behavior. Jewish schools and Chinese schools where everyone's Buddhist would be just fine with me.

Which is understandable.

Now the issue here is what morals and virtues do you think are necessary in the modern world? Surely these would be morals shared by a large percentage of the country, so why aren't these morals a part of every kid's education? I mean, kids need to learn how to be adults and schools are in a position to shape kids to become the sort of adults society wants them to be.

 

[sakinago]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Its what Republican Jesus would've wanted

Ha, pretty much nailed it. Most Republicans who consider themselves 'Good Christians', are only worthy of being mocked and shamed.

You realize this is a complete straw man. Since Jesus never demanded the romans provide the food. Just use a little critical thinking, if you're ego is so fragile that you have to lower the basketball rim to 6ft every time you get the ball, you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Staying with that analogy, you pull the drowning man out of the surf, but you don't proceed to build walls around the ocean and a wading pool so he can play without fearing the waves. We don't want a safety net to just catch people and leave them there, we want a trampoline to bounce them back into productivity so they can again provide for themselves. That's the difference between the modern liberal and conservative approach. The conservative approach wants to see more people off assistance and able to provide for themselves while the liberal approach seems to desire more people dependent on assistance.

Exactly! Conservatives measure compassion by how many people DON'T NEED it any more.

I would doubt that very much.

You have the partisan conservatives who only care about winning, you have the conservatives who are interested only in getting as much from the system as possible, then you have a few conservatives who actually do care, but these are way in the minority.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Where do you get off by stating that "liberals" want to make people dependent on the government.

I am probably what you would call a liberal and I cant think of anything worse than being dependent on anybody.

But I do recognise that life is a bit more complicated than your simplistic assumptions and that people sometimes need a bit of help.

Ive had to work hard for everything I have got and I have never claimed a penny. But the best thing is that I have managed to hang on to my humanity and I dont look down on those who dont have it so good.

"Sometimes need a bit of help". Great. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But, let's look at this logically. Who makes the case that someone has been helped a lot and should now provide for themselves? Who makes the case that it's cruel to make someone provide for themselves? A case in point, what happens when unemployment benefits run out after 2 years? Modern conservatives say that people should take what work they can find, while "liberals" say that we should keep extending those benefits ad infinitum.

I look at it as give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.....Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what do you do when there are no fish left in the pond?


.

Then you're living in a socialist hell hole where regulations and high minimum wages have destroyed the low paying jobs that give you an entrance back into the work force, or can generate a small amount of income while you're trying to get back into your career.

Here's the reality. In America, you don't have to be dependent on a job someone else provides you. You can, with persistence and hard work, generate income outside of a regular job. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Bootstraps.....
The economy means nothing if you got BOOTSTRAPS

 

[rightwinger]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Its what Republican Jesus would've wanted

Ha, pretty much nailed it. Most Republicans who consider themselves 'Good Christians', are only worthy of being mocked and shamed.

You realize this is a complete straw man. Since Jesus never demanded the romans provide the food. Just use a little critical thinking, if you're ego is so fragile that you have to lower the basketball rim to 6ft every time you get the ball, you shouldn't be playing the game.

Yea...and if referees are only making calls for the rich, your chances of winning the game are gone

 

[sakinago]

It was in the law you couldn't keep your doctor. They knew it. That's a lie even if it is as you say just a selling point.

Because of the first amendment

Can schools teach there is no god and that Jesus was made up?

That is teaching religion in schools

I would say that if most people of that school district held that belief, why not? It's their money.

Probably because that's not what school is about. There's a reason governments around the world started to implement mass education, and force kids to go to school. You can see why if you go to certain places in Africa where kids don't go to school and see what the impact is. Society has decided that society is much better when people receive a certain level of education. Going into school and learning make belief really doesn't help to develop the country.

And yet they teach global warming all the time.

Nobody was debating forced education. We were debating what is being taught. I'm sure many home school students learn religion as part of their studies, and I'm sure religious schools have religion as part of their curriculum. Religion was much of our daily studies when I went to a Catholic school. In fact, you were also graded on your church attendance record.

I do not believe that anybody should have religion shoved down their throat. But if you move to a Jewish community, and the taxpayers fund their schools wanting to teach their religion, I have no problem with that. If you don't like their religion, don't move to the Jewish area and attend Jewish public schools.

Truth is, if I were ever dumb enough to move to one of the mega-cities, I would be looking around for a nice, private religious school for my kid. Wouldn't even have to be my church; would just need to be a religion that teaches about virtue and moral behavior. Jewish schools and Chinese schools where everyone's Buddhist would be just fine with me.

Which is understandable.

Now the issue here is what morals and virtues do you think are necessary in the modern world? Surely these would be morals shared by a large percentage of the country, so why aren't these morals a part of every kid's education? I mean, kids need to learn how to be adults and schools are in a position to shape kids to become the sort of adults society wants them to be.

So the morals of the majority should be indoctrinated into the children of the minority? You don't see how that's a problem?

Parents are the biggest shaper of their children, and should be completely responsible for it, not schools. Especially since A. No one loves their own children more than parents B. A school cannot give sufficient means of shaping their students, since they are not capable of giving the required time, patience, resources, to every single students individual needs.

Schools should be working with parents as parents take the lead in raising their children. Schools should definitely not be in the business of indoctrination. Only business in teaching our youth is how to learn, not what to learn, and doing so along with parents, not against them.