Eyes wide shut

[NObama]

 
 
 

Don W Knotts wrote:

<quoted text>
A simple yes or no would have been suffice. N
Since you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is on welfare I'll assume that everyone who disagrees with me is an inbred.

While I suppose it is possible, like Obama my maternal and paternal ancestors hailed from differing continents. Your sensitivity to welfare indicates to me that at one time in your life said program put food on your family's table. No harm in it, only an astute observation on my part.

For the record, I have never claimed everyone who disagrees with me is on welfare.
They are quite simply wrong.
 
 
 

[Aunt Minnie]

Ethel wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Minnie. Fancy meeting you here. ;)
Why do what? Argue with this Titus character? I don't really know...I think I must be cranky because I have not been sleeping well.
I don't recall you saying Bugger was your son-in-law. I haven't seen him post lately. I hope all is well with him.
Are you related to Titus as well?
May I ask you a question? Why do you think he reacted as he did to what I said to Kickback? I thought it came out of the blue and was very strange.

Fancy meeting me here? Is it against the law that I read any and all threads that I am interested in?

You knew he was related to me, but not how. No, things are not well with him,. His daughter/my grand-daughter is very sick in the Columbus hospital. That should explain why he hasn't been on Topix for the past week or so, and that goes as well for me. Lindy is going to be okay, but it was touch and go for awhile.

I suppose he saw the irony of you accusing Kickback of behaving the very way you were behaving. Sorry for being so blunt.

[Ethel]

In fiscal year 2011, we the people gave the State of California over 3.5 billion dollars for 'temporary' family assistance. Currently, the figure for FY 2012 stands somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.6 B. And we still have over five months to go.

Ohio is the fourth highest paid state of assistance money in federal funds.

These programs are necessary, but the assistance is supposed to be temporary.

When you hear 5th graders boasting about being 'fourth generation welfare,' thinking that is a good thing (true story) then something is very, very wrong.

[Elaine Batt]

Sorry about the formatting--not sure what happened there!

[Ethel]

Aunt Minnie wrote:

<quoted text>
Fancy meeting me here? Is it against the law that I read any and all threads that I am interested in?
You knew he was related to me, but not how. No, things are not well with him,. His daughter/my grand-daughter is very sick in the Columbus hospital. That should explain why he hasn't been on Topix for the past week or so, and that goes as well for me. Lindy is going to be okay, but it was touch and go for awhile.
I suppose he saw the irony of you accusing Kickback of behaving the very way you were behaving. Sorry for being so blunt.

Of course not. Why so touchy?

I am glad you granddaughter is going to be OK. I hope she continues to improve.

I hope you won't mind if I am blunt as well? Seeing the irony of something is fine, but unless you have a stake in it, why insinuate yourself into the argument? And so vehemently, at that.

[Titus Jackson]

Ethel wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not. Why so touchy?
I am glad you granddaughter is going to be OK. I hope she continues to improve.
I hope you won't mind if I am blunt as well? Seeing the irony of something is fine, but unless you have a stake in it, why insinuate yourself into the argument? And so vehemently, at that.

You must be related to Don South and GBA. They don't listen to reason, either.

Perhaps you haven't paid much attention to Topix, but Repubs tend to defend each other and Dems stand up for one another, too. Do you have to know someone to do that? Don't say you have never stuck your nose into someone elses's conversation because you do it all the time.

You have a real problem lady. You're just itching for a fight with everyone.

[Titus Jackson]

Ethel wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not. Why so touchy?
I am glad you granddaughter is going to be OK. I hope she continues to improve.
I hope you won't mind if I am blunt as well? Seeing the irony of something is fine, but unless you have a stake in it, why insinuate yourself into the argument? And so vehemently, at that.

You must be related to Don South and GBA. They don't listen to reason, either.

Perhaps you haven't paid much attention to Topix, but Repubs tend to defend each other and Dems stand up for one another, too. Do you have to know someone to do that? Don't say you have never stuck your nose into someone elses's conversation because you do it all the time.

You have a real problem lady. You're just itching for a fight with everyone.

[Ethel]

Titus Jackson wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be related to Don South and GBA. They don't listen to reason, either.
Perhaps you haven't paid much attention to Topix, but Repubs tend to defend each other and Dems stand up for one another, too. Do you have to know someone to do that? Don't say you have never stuck your nose into someone elses's conversation because you do it all the time.
You have a real problem lady. You're just itching for a fight with everyone.

I don't stand up for any comment I do not agree with, and if you are paying attention, you will know that I have agreed with both Democrats and Republicans, alike, on this forum. I read the comment a person makes, and I reply with my opinion. I do not blindly agree with anyone just because they are from the same political party as I am. Only a dimwit would do that.

[Ethel]

Titus Jackson wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be related to Don South and GBA. They don't listen to reason, either.
Perhaps you haven't paid much attention to Topix, but Repubs tend to defend each other and Dems stand up for one another, too. Do you have to know someone to do that? Don't say you have never stuck your nose into someone elses's conversation because you do it all the time.
You have a real problem lady. You're just itching for a fight with everyone.

Listen to reason? Had I heard anything reasonable, I may have.

[thud333]

Titus Jackson wrote:

<quoted text>
Tax cuts might not cause deficits, but they help pay deficits off. Nobody enjoys paying them, but somebody has got to do it if you like having a good military, safe highways to travel on, schools, police and fire protection, etc. Now you don't even want the super rich to pay their fair share of taxes, either. You also don't seem to care that your tax rates are higher than theirs and that you pay a higher ratio of your dollars in taxes than people like Romney. If you don't help pay the deficit down , and you defend the rich and don't think they ought to pay either, just who do you think are going to pay the rich's share for them? Your kids, and grand-kids, that's who.
And just what programs do the rich want to cut, anyway? Any program that hurts the poor and the most vulnerable in our society, that's who.. People who already are hurting and having trouble surviving. Is it that you would rather these poor and sick people just die out so that the "haves" can have even more? What you don't seem to realize is that eventually they will step in for your share too, and you will be powerless because there will be no one left to stand up for you when it happens. You'll just have to face the reality that people like you actually gave the rich permission to hurt other people, because you felt safe at the time and never dreamed it would happen to you.

With the vast majority of the federal budget made up of entitlement, safety net programs, etc and 18% defense spending, where do you propose that the money comes from to get our fiscal house in order - and please, don't give this "fair share" stuff because we cannot tax our way out of this. Besides - this paying less than secretaries isn't all its cracked up to be by this President

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-l...

At some point you folks in the left are going to have to make a decision. Do you agree that we need to get our fiscal house in order or would you prefer that we allow the economy to collapse? If you agree with the 1st than we are going to have to prioritize programs and choose. If you think collapse is a better option or that we can tax our way out of this, than God help us all.

[Charlie Woo]

NObama wrote:

 
 
 
<quoted text>
While I suppose it is possible, like Obama my maternal and paternal ancestors hailed from differing continents. Your sensitivity to welfare indicates to me that at one time in your life said program put food on your family's table. No harm in it, only an astute observation on my part.
For the record, I have never claimed everyone who disagrees with me is on welfare.
They are quite simply wrong.
 
 
 

Like you snipped at him and insinuated he had "to wait on a check at the first of the month," so it would seem you do this a lot with other Democrats. I bet a few other references like this could be found.

[Charlie Woo]

thud333 wrote:

<quoted text>
With the vast majority of the federal budget made up of entitlement, safety net programs, etc and 18% defense spending, where do you propose that the money comes from to get our fiscal house in order - and please, don't give this "fair share" stuff because we cannot tax our way out of this. Besides - this paying less than secretaries isn't all its cracked up to be by this President
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-l...
At some point you folks in the left are going to have to make a decision. Do you agree that we need to get our fiscal house in order or would you prefer that we allow the economy to collapse? If you agree with the 1st than we are going to have to prioritize programs and choose. If you think collapse is a better option or that we can tax our way out of this, than God help us all.

As far as I am concerned, as long as you are willing to give more tax breaks to the rich, then you have no right complaining at whatever it costs to help the poor. Your Right-wing Party is beginning to sound like the Party who believes the rich can never have enough and the poor have too much.

Just what programs do you want to cut and who do you want to see die.... and I mean literally starve to death, so that a certain group of Americans won't have to worry about whatever cost it takes to help fellow Americans out anywmore? This includes their children. You know, the same children that you used to be so concerned about while they were still unborn fetuses in their poor welfare mother's womb? Back then you waved your righteous flag above your head screaming "I'm pro-life," but then suddenly, you lost that stance once those babies became real human beings able to exist outside their mother's uterous. Now you certainly sound like you could care less what happens to them since they are no longer locked up in a womb somewhere out of sight. And now since some of your tax dollars may be going for their care, suddenly they appear as pests instead of LIFE. Life no longer seems so valuable if it costs you some money.

[Darwin]

Cut all welfare programs, forced sterilization of ignorant people. If you have a child out of wedlock, you get no help ever. We are the only species on earth that protect those unable to fend for themselves. It weakens the gene pool to support the cling-ons. Let them die. The deficit will eventually take care of itself. Hungry people will eventually find work.

[Mrs Sippy]

Darwin wrote:

Cut all welfare programs, forced sterilization of ignorant people. If you have a child out of wedlock, you get no help ever. We are the only species on earth that protect those unable to fend for themselves. It weakens the gene pool to support the cling-ons. Let them die. The deficit will eventually take care of itself. Hungry people will eventually find work.

So you want to revert back to being animals, survival of the fitess, where our species lose what separates us from the animals ---humaneness? Your speech seems not too far from the speech that Hitler used about his feelings for Jews, only you hate those less fortunate than you. If this is the new definition of the Republican Party? Sorry, but I will pass.

Animals do protect their weak and their old. Read about wolf packs.

[Darwin]

Mrs Sippy wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want to revert back to being animals, survival of the fitess, where our species lose what separates us from the animals ---humaneness? Your speech seems not too far from the speech that Hitler used about his feelings for Jews, only you hate those less fortunate than you. If this is the new definition of the Republican Party? Sorry, but I will pass.
Animals do protect their weak and their old. Read about wolf packs.

Spoken like a third generation cling-on.

[thud333]

Charlie Woo wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as I am concerned, as long as you are willing to give more tax breaks to the rich, then you have no right complaining at whatever it costs to help the poor. Your Right-wing Party is beginning to sound like the Party who believes the rich can never have enough and the poor have too much.
Just what programs do you want to cut and who do you want to see die.... and I mean literally starve to death, so that a certain group of Americans won't have to worry about whatever cost it takes to help fellow Americans out anywmore? This includes their children. You know, the same children that you used to be so concerned about while they were still unborn fetuses in their poor welfare mother's womb? Back then you waved your righteous flag above your head screaming "I'm pro-life," but then suddenly, you lost that stance once those babies became real human beings able to exist outside their mother's uterous. Now you certainly sound like you could care less what happens to them since they are no longer locked up in a womb somewhere out of sight. And now since some of your tax dollars may be going for their care, suddenly they appear as pests instead of LIFE. Life no longer seems so valuable if it costs you some money.

Quit trying to pull people's chains Charlie - you know better

[Ethel]

Mrs Sippy wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want to revert back to being animals, survival of the fitess, where our species lose what separates us from the animals ---humaneness? Your speech seems not too far from the speech that Hitler used about his feelings for Jews, only you hate those less fortunate than you. If this is the new definition of the Republican Party? Sorry, but I will pass.
Animals do protect their weak and their old. Read about wolf packs.

Lol! I am so very sorry, sip, but REALLY? Survival of the fitess? Humaneness?

If we did revert to survival of the fittest, oh, well, never mind. I don't want to be accused of being 'on the rag', so you just carry on.

[Ethel]

In my opinion, what our country needs is a new 'New Deal.' It was a great idea for the time, and it worked, but times have changed.

There are too many taking advantage of the 'deal' they are getting at others' expense.

I wouldn't go so far as Darwin did above, but it's time to take care of ourselves, individually, or as a family group.

Let the government govern, not be caretakers.

Just my opinion.

[GBA]

Ironbutterfly wrote:

Obama is not your biggest problem.
Your biggest problem is that your party does not have a candidate who is able to beat Obama.
But anyway...what's the difference....Obama or Romneybama?

Iron you swerved into the truth. The beltway doesn't care which man wins. They wanted Romney because he would assure that Washington would continue business as usual and they could go on without much change. The real change must come from the House and the Senate and the very long overhaul of the bureaucrats that run the government.

[DON W SOUTH]

Ironbutterfly wrote:

Obama is not your biggest problem.
Your biggest problem is that your party does not have a candidate who is able to beat Obama.
But anyway...what's the difference....Obama or Romneybama?

LOTS!