George W Bush Presidential Library opens

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#21 Apr 26, 2013
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
So who will pay for all of the programs the liberals want to increase?
And for sake of argument, let's take just one of the points you tried to make for starters.... Increase unemployment. Are you kidding me???? Just how long would you like it to be?? Good grief. It was meant to be a short term safety net. Not a hammock.
And health care??? We can go there after the unemployment issue is settled. One at a time.
And I set my own schedule. One of the benefits of having achieved success.
BTW, Unemployment is INSURANCE...you pay into it, so why not use it when needed?

Again, the conservative stance is the hateful stance!
Curious

Lancaster, NY

#22 Apr 26, 2013
No WE do not pay for all of these programs with any joy.
Do you think that unemployment benefits really and truly need to be 73 weeks? 26 weeks wasn't enough?
We're sticking with one specific point at a time. No "conservatives are blah blah blah" rhetoric. Stay on point.
73 weeks of unemployment creates a tremendous disincentive to find work. Finding work = individual success. Collecting benefits is not encouraging individual success.
Curious

Lancaster, NY

#23 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, Unemployment is INSURANCE...you pay into it, so why not use it when needed?
Again, the conservative stance is the hateful stance!
Seriously? It's there why not use it? Use it for 73 weeks? Heck, why not try for disability insurance after that? You paid for it, so why not use it?
Most successful people want to work, not collect. And they know the path to greater success lies in individual initiative. That is not hateful at all. It is empowering.
FFS-

Buffalo, NY

#24 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>I understad that its normal for conservatives to hate people without reason, so i accept this answer as being true!
I'm an atheist with no political affiliation. I just hate you.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#25 Apr 26, 2013
They should have put it in Saudi Arabia, where Bush's friends are.

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#26 Apr 26, 2013
Curious wrote:
No WE do not pay for all of these programs with any joy.
Do you think that unemployment benefits really and truly need to be 73 weeks? 26 weeks wasn't enough?
We're sticking with one specific point at a time. No "conservatives are blah blah blah" rhetoric. Stay on point.
73 weeks of unemployment creates a tremendous disincentive to find work. Finding work = individual success. Collecting benefits is not encouraging individual success.
What do you mean "stay on point" Youre the tool that has ADD here. YOUR ORIGINAL POINT WAS THAT LIBERALS HATE SUCCESS...yet you havent been able to suipport that statement yet!

Your god Reagan extended unemployement to 99 weeks twice. Unlike todays mindless fright wingers, daft old ronny understood that during a recession, this is needed to keep the economy moving!

It aint rocket scioence skippy!

Conservatives want to end unempoloyement because it is the hateful thing to do. The conservaive stane is the hateful stance....AS IS THE ORIGINAL TOPIC

Now try to stay on point!

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#27 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist with no political affiliation. I just hate you.
So youre a conservative in denial!

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#28 Apr 26, 2013
WDRussell wrote:
They should have put it in Saudi Arabia, where Bush's friends are.
THose are Cheney's friends. W could barely tie his shoes!

Cheney is the saudi King's lil biatch!
FFS-

Buffalo, NY

#29 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>So youre a conservative in denial!
No i just hate you. Almost as much as as your neighbors do

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#30 Apr 26, 2013
March 31, 1982, Reagan claimed that, "We have, in some of the hardest-hit states, extended the unemployment insurance. There's nothing that strikes to my heart more than the unemployed."
Buck Rohde

Buffalo, NY

#31 Apr 26, 2013
Matt Kruse wrote:
When my friends and I used to post on the Yahoo finance boards, we read where some rowdys were going to that library once it opened and trash and stink up the place. I gotta tell you, that was some of the funniest stuff I ever read.
Matt,

I would give just about anything to see that library totally trashed and full of filth.

ROTFLMFAO
Curious

Lancaster, NY

#32 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "stay on point" Youre the tool that has ADD here. YOUR ORIGINAL POINT WAS THAT LIBERALS HATE SUCCESS...yet you havent been able to suipport that statement yet!
Your god Reagan extended unemployement to 99 weeks twice. Unlike todays mindless fright wingers, daft old ronny understood that during a recession, this is needed to keep the economy moving!
It aint rocket scioence skippy!
Conservatives want to end unempoloyement because it is the hateful thing to do. The conservaive stane is the hateful stance....AS IS THE ORIGINAL TOPIC
Now try to stay on point!
My original point was "why are liberals so against INDIVIDUAL success?" And I questioned why government needs to level the playing field for everyone. I'm still here and on point. You mentioned a hypothetical example of giving tax breaks to Donald Trump in order to trickle down. Mr. Trump will always have a different tax structure than most people due to the very nature of his complicated business dealings, so he is a bad example. How about your run of the mill, successful individual next door (to me, not you - people in my neighborhood are individually successful). Your argument for increases in government spending is based on US gladly paying for it. Not so fast. I don't agree. You are now hypothesizing the same type of trickle down argument. Increasing individual tax burdens on wealthy and successful individuals will trickle down the societal ladder through governmental social programs.
I do not agree that is sound reasoning. My first specific point had to do with unemployment. I just started with that one out if the blue from the programs you identified. My point was 73 weeks is a ridiculous amount of time. I never talked about Ronald Reagan or his programs, nor did I bring him up. You did. I stated that I believe that extension of benefits creates a disincentive to find successful work. Work is one of the many components of individual success.
Let's see if you can drop all of the mindless rhetoric about "hate" and all of the childish attempts at name calling and condescension. You are so enmeshed in your rage against people who have achieved success you can't reason clearly. Please logically explain to me why you believe unemployment benefits should be increased, and how you think that would empower and individual to be more successful.

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#33 Apr 26, 2013
You do lots of typing, yet you never actually make a point! All you did there was recap the same stupidity you already said!

If conservatives are so for individual success, then why are all the poorest and least educated states in America solid red states? Also, these same states are the most dependent on Federal assistance. Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia. It's proof that the conservative model is a complete failure.

Conversely, the wealthiest states are liberal areas?

Again, Your original point is that liberals are against personal success. you have yet to type ANYTHING which supports that statement! Clearly you are not able!
Curious

Lancaster, NY

#34 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
You do lots of typing, yet you never actually make a point! All you did there was recap the same stupidity you already said!
If conservatives are so for individual success, then why are all the poorest and least educated states in America solid red states? Also, these same states are the most dependent on Federal assistance. Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia. It's proof that the conservative model is a complete failure.
Conversely, the wealthiest states are liberal areas?
Again, Your original point is that liberals are against personal success. you have yet to type ANYTHING which supports that statement! Clearly you are not able!
Ok. I will make this very simple and focused. Liberals want more and more federally funded social programs. Those programs require money to support them. The money comes from taxes. Taxes are based on income. Liberals want to increase taxes on high income individuals. The rationale is "they can afford it so let's make them fund programs they don''t necessarily ideologically support". Liberals want to tax the wealthy/successful individuals in a punitive fashion in order to level the playing field. Was that clear enough?
Also, liberals want to keep a large segment of the population dependent on governmental largesse. By making those benefits readily attainable, sustainable over time and ever increasing in size and scope. A populace that is dependent on government intervention will never achieve individual success because their efforts will always be undermined by a desire to keep things " fair and equitable" for all. Liberals translate that as a level playing field. I have explained repeatedly to my teenage children that "fair" does not equate to "the same as what the other person has". "Fair" is when you get what you "deserve." A "fair" grade is one that is consistent with the result on the test or assignment, a "fair" punishment is commensurate with the offense. Liberals are attempting to create an "us" versus "them" mentality where individual success is evil. You are a prime example. You are constantly spewing vitriol. You use the word "hate" and resort to name calling in every post you make. Face it, you dislike me because I am successful.
And you red state/blue state argument is silly. Take New York State for example. Considering the level of benefits that state confers on anyone who comes asking, my gosh, no wonder there are so many people coming to NYS and continuing to vote for those who want to keep handing out to them.
Curious

Lancaster, NY

#35 Apr 26, 2013
And again, I ask you....you said liberals believe in increasing unemployment benefits. Please explain to me how 73 weeks is not enough? Why do you want to make finding work so unappealing?

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#37 Apr 26, 2013
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. I will make this very simple and focused. Liberals want more and more federally funded social programs. Those programs require money to support them. The money comes from taxes. Taxes are based on income. Liberals want to increase taxes on high income individuals. The rationale is "they can afford it so let's make them fund programs they don''t necessarily ideologically support". Liberals want to tax the wealthy/successful individuals in a punitive fashion in order to level the playing field. Was that clear enough?
Also, liberals want to keep a large segment of the population dependent on governmental largesse. By making those benefits readily attainable, sustainable over time and ever increasing in size and scope. A populace that is dependent on government intervention will never achieve individual success because their efforts will always be undermined by a desire to keep things " fair and equitable" for all. Liberals translate that as a level playing field. I have explained repeatedly to my teenage children that "fair" does not equate to "the same as what the other person has". "Fair" is when you get what you "deserve." A "fair" grade is one that is consistent with the result on the test or assignment, a "fair" punishment is commensurate with the offense. Liberals are attempting to create an "us" versus "them" mentality where individual success is evil. You are a prime example. You are constantly spewing vitriol. You use the word "hate" and resort to name calling in every post you make. Face it, you dislike me because I am successful.
And you red state/blue state argument is silly. Take New York State for example. Considering the level of benefits that state confers on anyone who comes asking, my gosh, no wonder there are so many people coming to NYS and continuing to vote for those who want to keep handing out to them.
IN NO WAY DOES ANY OF THAT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM!

All you have done is repeat mindless conservative talking points that have no basis in fact whatsoever! YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THAT LIBERALS HATE PERSONAL SUCCESS. The reason is because you are not able to do so!

Liberal do support social programs....but NOBODY has asked for more and more programs!

Converesly, conservatives want to END social programs, thereby placing a barrier to personal success! Your point is dead right there! Conservatives HATE personal success and block any assistance to achieve it!

Red states are poor because they follow your failed ideology! THe poorest states in the US are RED states. THe WEALTHIEST are Liberal! WHY? Because liberal states assist people in getting ahead!

Get back to me when you want to use facts! Talking point pukers are a dime a dozen!

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#38 Apr 26, 2013
Conservatism is rooted in hatred. The hateful view will always be the conservative view!

W is a failure because he is a conservative!

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#39 Apr 26, 2013
Curious wrote:
And again, I ask you....you said liberals believe in increasing unemployment benefits. Please explain to me how 73 weeks is not enough? Why do you want to make finding work so unappealing?
Why are you making a stupid assumption that being on unemployment means not looking? Again, anither hateful claim that cannot be supported!

Hate is all conservatives have! Its what you live on!

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#40 Apr 26, 2013
See watch this....i will prove my point with facts from a verifiable source:

Income by state as per the US census:

State Dollars Rank
Mississippi 28,845 50
West Virginia 29,537 49
Arkansas 30,060 48
South Carolina 31,013 47
Kentucky 31,111 46
Utah 31,189 45
Idaho 31,197 44
New Mexico 31,474 43
Alabama 32,404 42
Montana 32,458 41
Arizona 33,029 40
Tennessee 33,280 39
Georgia 33,457 38
Indiana 33,616 37
North Carolina 33,636 36
Maine 33,722 35
South Dakota 33,905 34
Oklahoma 34,153 33
Missouri 34,389 32
Louisiana 34,756 31
Oregon 34,784 30
North Dakota 34,846 29

The LEAST SUCCESSFUL STATES ARE RED STATES. THIS IS THE RESULT OF CONSERVATIVE POLICY!
Curious

Lancaster, NY

#41 Apr 26, 2013
FFS- wrote:
See watch this....i will prove my point with facts from a verifiable source:
Income by state as per the US census:
State Dollars Rank
Mississippi 28,845 50
West Virginia 29,537 49
Arkansas 30,060 48
South Carolina 31,013 47
Kentucky 31,111 46
Utah 31,189 45
Idaho 31,197 44
New Mexico 31,474 43
Alabama 32,404 42
Montana 32,458 41
Arizona 33,029 40
Tennessee 33,280 39
Georgia 33,457 38
Indiana 33,616 37
North Carolina 33,636 36
Maine 33,722 35
South Dakota 33,905 34
Oklahoma 34,153 33
Missouri 34,389 32
Louisiana 34,756 31
Oregon 34,784 30
North Dakota 34,846 29
The LEAST SUCCESSFUL STATES ARE RED STATES. THIS IS THE RESULT OF CONSERVATIVE POLICY!
That is what is known as a spurious correlation.
Taking a measure of "average" income by state has nothing to do with an individual's ability to achieve personal success.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Buffalo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
All Liberals Are Sociopaths (Jun '13) 3 hr punK 190
Tom Connolly WBEN Radio 8 hr Buck Rohde 64
The New york scratch off 11 hr victumoffraud 56
Poll Is Buffalo NY a sanctuary city? Wed Homeboynot 7
Confederate flag is an icon Wed BigDeal 15
NFTA Bus to Clarence Wed Buck Rohde 5
i wrote an article regarding buffalo's mob problem (Oct '12) Wed Buck Rohde 23
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Buffalo Mortgages