Posted by Guest (Post 1264882)

Maybe try this for the kids and grand-kids regarding the election.
Well youngsters, you can make up your mind to vote for which candidate.
1. One of them a woman is a pathological liar she hads been a leech sucking on the government all her life, she has never done a real job of any kind, just flies the world on taxpayers money and entertains her friends and her kid.
2. An accomplished developer who has designed, developed and built multi million dollar projects has made his own wealth, has not leeched off of the government, has a poor vocabulary but has done a lot for charity and helping others in need, is financing millions of his own money to be elected. A real dedicated American.
TAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE KIDS AND LET ME KNOW.

bbbbbb chilout

Posted by Guest (Post 1265644)

I congratulate you on your left leaning incoherent rant.

Posted by Guest (Post 1265644)

I wish you had even the slightest idea of what you are talking about, but like most "lefties", you are blinded by ideology and cannot deal with reality. I guess you think the CEO of IBM, responsible for tens of thousands of workers and billions of dollars should get the same pay as the guy who screws part A into slot B.? You glossed over my agreement with you about the WORKING poor. My point deals with the LAZY POOR, THE CRIMINAL POOR, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POOR, and the MOTHER OF 8 CHILDREN BY 8 DIFFERENT FATHERS POOR. I suppose you think it is "social justice" that millions of "Joe the Plumbers" work their butts off to just scrape by and yet have to support those losers?

BTW, the way you stop the beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets is by eliminating ALL CASH from the hands of public assistance recipients. No EBT cards. You go back to food stamps, except this time at 100% face value, and only good for the categories of food stamped on the coupon. You make it a class B felony to possess food stamps that you are not entitled to, so the resale market dries up. Yes, yes, the left thinks this was "demeaning" that people in the grocery line could see you were using food stamps. Well, too bad, skip the pity party. Those in line are paying for them anyway. What you, economically speaking don't realize, is that it is IMPERATIVE, repeat IMPERATIVE that those on public assistance occupy the very lowest rung of the economic ladder. Otherwise there is no incentive to work, get educated, or better yourself. Who would work if they could enjoy the same lifestyle for free? That's human nature. When FDR started "the dole" in the 30's, it was a SUBSISTANCE living----cold water flat, government surplus cheese and bread line. People would take any, repeat ANY job to get off "the dole". Now , with large screen TVs, computer systems with high speed internet, free cell phones, cars, and a magic EBT card that can even be used in casinos and strip clubs, there is little incentive to change.

Posted by Guest (Post 1265669)

:1rotfl:

Only 'incoherent,' because you once again dodged the question of your prejudice...and obvious acceptance of subsidizing corporations that pay low wages.

Either that, or because you're too busy yelling with caps...you aren't smart enough to comprehend.

So which is it? :ohdear:

While your suggestions on reducing using those cards for things that they shouldn't be used makes sense in some ways (I admit that I am not that familiar with what they can/cannot use them for), you have once again only addressed your stereotype of what you think is the average 'welfare recipient.'

So why don't you show us (with some type of legitimate statistical, not opinion, link) what % of those receiving public assistance, fits into that stereotypical 'lazy/shiftless/mother of 8/etc.' category of yours?

Is it 75%?

50%?

25%?

Less than 10%?

And then what % of those getting that assistance, are actually part of the working poor?

Or are you afraid that it might burst YOUR little bubble of ignorance and prejudice? ;)




LOL :D

You haven't 'busted' anything of mine, you've simply reinforced my viewpoint that ignorant and nasty people like you and your ilk will develop whatever prejudices necessary...to reinforce your own anger and hatred.

BTW - Aren't you the same (hard to tell, since all you 'guests' sound alike...LOL) jerk who tried to lecture me about leveling 'personal attacks?'

And yet, you were the first to do it in your other post.

Like I've said many times, you flaming hypocrites...crack me the hell up. :1rotfl:

Thanks for the guffaws. :thumbup:


:wave:

CNM

Posted by Guest (Post 1265702)

I didn't think it was possible, but you've outdone yourself this time.

First of all, I am hardly prejudiced. Let me walk that back, I have a "work ethic" prejudice. I have no use for anyone who feels they are "entitled" to sit on their a$$ and reap the benefit of other people efforts.

As far as "subsidizing corporations that pay low wages", employers will pay a wage that gets them the workers they need, driven by market forces. Again, go back to economics 101. If buying their product is a "subsidy", it is what it is. If your argument is that low wage workers still qualify for welfare and I subsidize that by taxes, that is a construct of the government YOU elected, not the corporation.

And I would love to know, and share with you statistics on the demographics of welfare recipients, but they do not publish how many "'lazy/shiftless/mother of 8/etc." are getting taxpayer funds. It doesn't matter, because one is one too many. Again, I have no problem with those who work hard but still need help.

And, no, I am not the one who lectured about personal attacks. There is no need, since I long ago acknowledged that all the "flaming" hypocrites reside on the left, and when confronted with facts and logic all they can do is resort to name calling. As proof, see the post that referred to a "big meanie". Has anyone ever used that term past 3rd grade? Well, I guess at least one person has, assuming they are not a 3rd grader.

Lastly, is the term "flaming" some sort of slur against homosexuals? Given the DNC e-mails, that would be completely in line with liberal thinking.

Posted by Guest (Post 1265789)

Actually, your posts prove that you are quite prejudiced.

What they also show, is a complete lack of honesty in admitting it.

But hey, continuing to justify that prejudice by saying "one is one too many"...isn't fooling anyone with even average intelligence.

Conversely, I can see where "one ignorant, right-wing, intolerant racist is one too many"...so I at least see your point.

The problem of course, is the latter is much more prevalent than the former...and will never go away. :ohdear:

And your full acceptance of billion dollar companies being subsidized by American taxpayers, because they pay their workers so little that they qualify for public assistance...simply epitomizes the flaming hypocrisy of the right.

Speaking of being a 'flaming hypocrite,' only a homophobe would connote 'flaming' with solely applying to gays.

As I'm sure you have been told many times in your life.... that you are a 'flaming azzhole.' (not a gay reference) :1rotfl:

So it looks like you outed yourself there too. ;)


:wave:

CNM

Posted by Guest (Post 1265789)

Actually, your posts prove that you are quite prejudiced.

What they also show, is a complete lack of honesty in admitting it.

But hey, continuing to justify that prejudice by saying "one is one too many"...isn't fooling anyone with even average intelligence.

Conversely, I can see where "one ignorant, right-wing, intolerant racist is one too many"...so I at least see your point.

The problem of course, is the latter is much more prevalent than the former...and will never go away. :ohdear:

And your full acceptance of billion dollar companies being subsidized by American taxpayers, because they pay their workers so little that they qualify for public assistance...simply epitomizes the flaming hypocrisy of the right.

Speaking of being a 'flaming hypocrite,' only a homophobe would connote 'flaming' with solely applying to gays.

As I'm sure you have been told many times in your life.... that you are a 'flaming azzhole.' (not a gay reference) :1rotfl:

So it looks like you outed yourself there too. ;)


:wave:

CNM

Posted by Guest (Post 1265795)

Wow, you are one sick dude! :ohdear:

Posted by Guest (Post 1265544)

Wow, you really need to go back to Economics 101.
Any flat sales tax represents a higher percentage of income to those with less money, BUT ONLY IF THEY PURCHASE THE SAME AMOUNT OF GOODS AND SERVICES. They can't and they don't, it is simply a matter of lifestyle. Is your argument that "the poor" "deserve" the same lifestyle as "the rich"? If so, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!!. Do you subscribe to the theory that you can make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? That's a fallacy. Remember, "the rich" are rich for a reason---

They may have been born into money: In that case I agree with you, they don't "deserve" that any more than anyone "deserves" a government handout. Other than a few million that we would like to hand down to our kids, I wouldn't object to a heavy tax on anything over that. Better yet, I would like to see a mandatory contribution to legitimate charities.

They may have been "lucky". There are 2 types of luck. The first is the guy who left his garbage can lid at the curb, so flung it back to his house---hence inventing the Frisbee. Good for him. The second is the guy who buys a fistful of lottery tickets instead of milk for his baby. No sympathy there, I would make him give 80% of the winnings to a children's and orphan's fund.

But the overwhelming majority EARNED it, through hard work, reasonably frugal lifestyle, and wise savings and investments. They are the one's who "deserve" what they have, and the concept of taking it away to give it to a bunch of do-nothing couch sitters is ridiculous.

Your second post is economically idiotic. If a "greedy company" is paying lower wages than it's competitors, they will have no workers. If the general economy orchestrated by Obama supports low wages for medium income workers across the board, well, "elections have consequences". I also strongly object to the term "haughty/hatred", I have no problem helping the WORKING POOR, I have a problem supporting the LAZY POOR, THE CRIMINAL POOR, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POOR, and the MOTHER OF 8 CHILDREN BY 8 DIFFERENT FATHERS POOR. Choices should have consequences too. Unfortunately, it seems the concept of individual accountability is rapidly fading from the American scene

Posted by Guest (Post 1265790)

Here's the good news. I don't even have to bother to reply to this latest post, because res ipsa loquitur---it speaks for itself. I was being kind in stating previously that you may be blinded by ideology. Clearly, you just suffer from sub-normal intelligence----extremely sub-normal.

Posted by Guest (Post 1265795)

Wow, you are one sick dude! :ohdear:

Posted by Guest (Post 1265806)

Damn Straight!

Who is the CNM queer?

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

Posted by Guest (Post 1265251)

Oh, YES, I did. Do I get some kind of award?:eclipsee_gold_cup:

Posted by Guest (Post 1270410)

Yes the ahole award, did the children and grandchildren get up and cheer at every bigoted statement he made? You should be very proud of them.