Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#13679 Jun 26, 2012
Robert in 1965 America was far more liberal than it is today.Any explanations as to why liberalism seems to be growing less popular or is that simply a misconception on my part?

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#13680 Jun 26, 2012
A lot of my republican friends tell me they wanted someone who was a true conservative as the republican candidate.Where were they during the primaries?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13681 Jun 26, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
Robert in 1965 America was far more liberal than it is today.Any explanations as to why liberalism seems to be growing less popular or is that simply a misconception on my part?
I'd like to think that people have wised up and see liberal policies for the failures they are but I'm not so sure.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13682 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly the promise Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made in 1965 when they passed the Great Society. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. It was really designed to make the Democrats the permanent ruling party by increasing dependency and creating a permanent underclass which would always vote Democratic. The welfare system has damaged the traditonal family structure by making fathers unnecessary as the breadwinner. That's why illegitimacy rates have sky-rocketed since the mid sixties. Single parent households are much more likely to be poor. So you lefties think this is all ok after we have spent multi trillions of dollars and yet see no result. Your value system is incredibly warped.
Maybe so, Robert, maybe so. That's your perception. Was there enough charity to go around to keep these people alive during the days of The Great Society? Did your family contribute to their needs? What are the other opions? Let them starve? Let them go into survival mode and commit more crimes in order to survive? In oder to survive, they will take from you. If there were jobs available ( particularlyfor minorities) in 1965 (and there were), why was Affimative Action even necessary? You make it sound like a conspiracy with the poor for political reasons. That's BS...What do you suggest we do from this point on? Are you hiring?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13683 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>I'd like to think that people have wised up and see liberal policies for the failures they are but I'm not so sure.
Tell us some of the conservative policies that have been great success.

“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#13684 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly the promise Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made in 1965 when they passed the Great Society. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. It was really designed to make the Democrats the permanent ruling party by increasing dependency and creating a permanent underclass which would always vote Democratic. The welfare system has damaged the traditonal family structure by making fathers unnecessary as the breadwinner. That's why illegitimacy rates have sky-rocketed since the mid sixties. Single parent households are much more likely to be poor. So you lefties think this is all ok after we have spent multi trillions of dollars and yet see no result. Your value system is incredibly warped.
The single fact is that if we did not have our safety net programs in place, poverty would go from around 15 percent to nearly 30.
We need to take the wealthy off of welfare(coorperations etc.) try to reform welfare to get the hood rats out, then worry about how were going to make the poor stable

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#13685 Jun 26, 2012
Seven your post was interesting but very vague as to how those goals can be accomplished.can you be more specific? No i'm not being sarcastic.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13686 Jun 26, 2012
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe so, Robert, maybe so. That's your perception. Was there enough charity to go around to keep these people alive during the days of The Great Society? Did your family contribute to their needs? What are the other opions? Let them starve? Let them go into survival mode and commit more crimes in order to survive? In oder to survive, they will take from you. If there were jobs available ( particularlyfor minorities) in 1965 (and there were), why was Affimative Action even necessary? You make it sound like a conspiracy with the poor for political reasons. That's BS...What do you suggest we do from this point on? Are you hiring?
Since you don't know me Arnold, I'll tell you something. No one that knows me would ever call me stingy.
What can we do? First of all we quit paying people to procreate that have no business having children. Children are a huge responsibility. No one should have them unless they can feed, clothe, shelter and educate them. We have created a culture of entitlement. No one should expect someone else to care for their children as a matter of course. Certainly emergencies happen and that what the safety net is for. The poor have been used to keep Democrats in power, liberals have no incentive for reducing the number of poor.

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#13687 Jun 26, 2012
Robert despite my smart aleck remark last week about you being in private schools I would bet that you have seen a fair amount of public schooling.I found that while I was in school the biggest impediment to learning was the out of control kids who banded into groups and made life a living hell for those who wanted to learn.That led to me dropping out of school at the age of fourteen.Seven years later I obtained my GED and joined the army.Basically I finished my education on my own.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13688 Jun 26, 2012
sevenSecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The single fact is that if we did not have our safety net programs in place, poverty would go from around 15 percent to nearly 30.
We need to take the wealthy off of welfare(coorperations etc.) try to reform welfare to get the hood rats out, then worry about how were going to make the poor stable
I don't want to make the poor stable, I want to get them out of poverty. On what do you base your figures? Please cite a reputable source.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13689 Jun 26, 2012
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us some of the conservative policies that have been great success.
The free enterprise system has been a huge success. It has made the United States the most prosperous, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation sparked one of longest peace time expansions in American history.

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#13690 Jun 26, 2012
Does anyone know anything about Reagan throwing all the mental patients out in the street en masse while governor of California? I never knew if that was a rumor perpetuated by political rivals out if it was the truth.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13691 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>Since you don't know me Arnold, I'll tell you something. No one that knows me would ever call me stingy.
What can we do? First of all we quit paying people to procreate that have no business having children. Children are a huge responsibility. No one should have them unless they can feed, clothe, shelter and educate them. We have created a culture of entitlement. No one should expect someone else to care for their children as a matter of course. Certainly emergencies happen and that what the safety net is for. The poor have been used to keep Democrats in power, liberals have no incentive for reducing the number of poor.
Don't you see it as odd that most Republlicans do not want frkee contraceptives or honest sex education to be made available, yet make a suggestion that some people, who they deem as irresponsible, quit having babies. Does this seem insane to anyone else? For those who aren't responsible parents and we cut off payments for the parents, what are we going to do with the children? If you say, "put them in foster homess', you do know that is an expansion of government, don't you? Taxpayers will pay that bill, too, want they? You make some good points, except you never explain "how". Now, I am asking you.."How?" How does poverty rapidly decline? What is your plan?

Allow me to leave you with a Bible verse, since you profess Christianity. "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God" Proverbs 14:31. Which side are you on in regard to this verse?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13692 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>The free enterprise system has been a huge success. It has made the United States the most prosperous, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation sparked one of longest peace time expansions in American history.
What do we deregulate? The food industry which would allow food to be contaminated? Restaurants, Where sanitary conditions can go unchecked? The Banking regulation where banks can make any rules they choose? Wall Street, where market managers can bilk the public into any financial scam they conjure up? Health care, where anyone can practice any form of medicine without any license requirements? Air pollution, where industry can throw anything into the air or waterways without any responsibity for the continued well being of the health of future generations? The list is endless. What deregulations would be beneficial for the people at large? Give me specific examples.

So, you are also saying the the Progressive Movement of the late 1800's, a LIBERAL policy movement, was harmful to the nation in it's growth, and specifically, did not benefit the individual person?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13693 Jun 26, 2012
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you see it as odd that most Republlicans do not want frkee contraceptives or honest sex education to be made available, yet make a suggestion that some people, who they deem as irresponsible, quit having babies. Does this seem insane to anyone else? For those who aren't responsible parents and we cut off payments for the parents, what are we going to do with the children? If you say, "put them in foster homess', you do know that is an expansion of government, don't you? Taxpayers will pay that bill, too, want they? You make some good points, except you never explain "how". Now, I am asking you.."How?" How does poverty rapidly decline? What is your plan?
Allow me to leave you with a Bible verse, since you profess Christianity. "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God" Proverbs 14:31. Which side are you on in regard to this verse?
I think keeping people in poverty and adding to their numbers for political gain would qualify as opression, don't you?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13694 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>I think keeping people in poverty and adding to their numbers for political gain would qualify as opression, don't you?
I had some questions for you first...Answer them and then I will answer your question. Don't play a game of avoidance.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13695 Jun 26, 2012
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
What do we deregulate? The food industry which would allow food to be contaminated? Restaurants, Where sanitary conditions can go unchecked? The Banking regulation where banks can make any rules they choose? Wall Street, where market managers can bilk the public into any financial scam they conjure up? Health care, where anyone can practice any form of medicine without any license requirements? Air pollution, where industry can throw anything into the air or waterways without any responsibity for the continued well being of the health of future generations? The list is endless. What deregulations would be beneficial for the people at large? Give me specific examples.
So, you are also saying the the Progressive Movement of the late 1800's, a LIBERAL policy movement, was harmful to the nation in it's growth, and specifically, did not benefit the individual person?
The deregulation of the trucking and airlines was very beneficial. I do believe the EPA has far too much power as a bureauacracy. You're a little riduculous. I don't favor throwing out all regulation. Yes, I believe the Progressive movement has done more harm than good.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13696 Jun 26, 2012
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>The deregulation of the trucking and airlines was very beneficial. I do believe the EPA has far too much power as a bureauacracy. You're a little riduculous. I don't favor throwing out all regulation. Yes, I believe the Progressive movement has done more harm than good.
You still don't answer all questions posed; Avoidance game. Now, The Progressive Movement. 40 hour work week, vacation, time and a half for overtime, retirement benefits. Tell me how that is bad for the individual working family? I will touch on the many other areas of progress if you want to debate this issue. Tell me the bad points of the Progressive Movement and how it was more bad than good? There are a lot of questions in above posts that you never touched. Let's play fair, Robert. Go back and answer my specific questions if you want the same from me. It seems that most conservatives EXPECT immediate answers from us while you skip our specific questions. You may enjoy a double standard in other areas of life, but not here, and not with me.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13697 Jun 26, 2012
Robert, EPA keeps you from dumping waste into the Catawba river at no expense to you, and keeps you regulated in air quality. That alone serves a great purpose for me and others in the area.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13698 Jun 26, 2012
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you see it as odd that most Republlicans do not want frkee contraceptives or honest sex education to be made available, yet make a suggestion that some people, who they deem as irresponsible, quit having babies. Does this seem insane to anyone else? For those who aren't responsible parents and we cut off payments for the parents, what are we going to do with the children? If you say, "put them in foster homess', you do know that is an expansion of government, don't you? Taxpayers will pay that bill, too, want they? You make some good points, except you never explain "how". Now, I am asking you.."How?" How does poverty rapidly decline? What is your plan?
Allow me to leave you with a Bible verse, since you profess Christianity. "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God" Proverbs 14:31. Which side are you on in regard to this verse?
Arnold, you know and I know that kids are taught sex education at an extremely early age. There's probably 10 year olds today that know more about sex than you and I were privy to until our teens. Kids don't need education about what causes pregnancy. Arnold, I've stated this many times, teens are able to receive free birth control at any health department, planned parenthood and even OB/GYN's give them free if a person can't afford them. I think on the Oprah channel (OWN), Lisa Ling will be doing a report on teenage moms. The sound bite has her saying that 1 out of 3 teenage girls will become mothers in their early teens. When one out of three teenage girls are becoming pregnant, I believe how this "miracle" happened is pretty much common knowledge.

Arnold, I know some people are "pro" everything. What's wrong with teaching young girls to respect their bodies and that sex is not love? Parents of these girls, especially mothers, need to know what their kids are doing and with whom. If a mother suspects her daugther or even son of being sexually active, she needs to make arrangements to get the child on birth control. The burden of practicing no sex, safe sex, and parents being real with themselves and their children isn't the government's job.
It's not the government's job to take care of children of children, repeatedly. Accidents happen, but more than two children "accidentally" isn't an accident, it's a pattern. If teens are going to play grown up, then they need to be responsible as a grown up. If a child can't support one child and she has another, then all I have to say is, there's waiting lists at every adoption agency around. Give that child to someone that can't have children. It's a win/win situation for everyone.



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.

Huntersville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Loud Boom heard at 10:00 pm (Nov '08) Dec 5 VIKTOR EGOV 19
News Gaston County planning new school in Belmont Up... Nov 19 Shea Shires 1
News Renaissance Festival to host 'Job Faire' Sep '16 LakeNormanMike 1
News Jean E. Matthew Aug '16 Wanda Minkler 1
Pokemon Go Jul '16 Grow up 2
Fun Jul '16 Laughing my butt off 3
News Retired North Carolina police chief Philip Pott... (Oct '13) Feb '16 Deja vu 7

Huntersville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntersville Mortgages