Would Biden extend his "Is they're not willing" policy to welfare?

Missourian

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2008
33,416
23,881
2,905
Missouri
Biden says...if Afghans aren't willing to fight...fuck em...feed them to the fucking wolves...you get tortured, raped, murdered, your women forced into virtual slave status...not our problem...

I'm sure that message was PR manufacturer and focus tested to the Nth degree...but are liberals really satisfied with that philosophy?

Doesn't that play right into the statement...if you're unwilling to work...don't eat...not our problem...

BUT...you'll say...what about the children?

There are children in Afghanistan too. If you'll accept the argument there...why not here?

If we have a moral imperative to protect those that are unwilling (or unable) here...why do we not have a moral imperative to protect those in a country we assumed conservatorship of for two decades?

The point is...as good a sound bite talking point as any focus group honing can produce... the "if they're not willing" falls as flat here as it does when used by the far right in the welfare debate. There is too much collateral damage attached to both arguments...and I think if you took a minute to mull it over...you would realize that as well...
 
Last edited:
Biden says...if Afghans aren't willing to fight...fuck em...feed them to the fucking wolves...you get tortured, raped, murdered, your women forced into virtual slave status...not our problem...

I'm sure that message was PR manufacturer and focus tested to the Nth degree...but are liberals really satisfied with that philosophy?

Doesn't that play right into the statement...if you're unwilling to work...don't eat...not our problem...

BUT...you'll say...what about the children?

There are children in Afghanistan too. If you'll accept the argument there...why not here?

If we have a moral imperative to protect those that are unwilling (or unable) here...why do we not have a moral imperative to protect those in a country we assumed conservatorship of for two decades?

The point is...as good a sound bite talking point as any focus group honing can produce... the "if they're not willing" falls as flat here as it does when used by the far right in the welfare debate. There is too much collateral damage attached to both arguments...and I think if you took a minute to mull it over...you would realize that sa well...
While i get your point(and fully realize these people arent consistent), welfare is for Americans. Big difference.
 
Biden says...if Afghans aren't willing to fight...fuck em...feed them to the fucking wolves...you get tortured, raped, murdered, your women forced into virtual slave status...not our problem...

I'm sure that message was PR manufacturer and focus tested to the Nth degree...but are liberals really satisfied with that philosophy?

Doesn't that play right into the statement...if you're unwilling to work...don't eat...not our problem...

BUT...you'll say...what about the children?

There are children in Afghanistan too. If you'll accept the argument there...why not here?

If we have a moral imperative to protect those that are unwilling (or unable) here...why do we not have a moral imperative to protect those in a country we assumed conservatorship of for two decades?

The point is...as good a sound bite talking point as any focus group honing can produce... the "if they're not willing" falls as flat here as it does when used by the far right in the welfare debate. There is too much collateral damage attached to both arguments...and I think if you took a minute to mull it over...you would realize that as well...
Good point--if the people of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are not willing to fight for their own country, then we shouldn't be bringing them here either.
 

Forum List

Back
Top