OKAY

United States

#184 Feb 21, 2013
Or the honest hardworking souls that built this land.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#185 Feb 21, 2013
OKAY wrote:
Kill the 'kid'? Where do you pull that from?
I know people that work 3 partime jobs to 'make' it. WHY? Because of their 'work' ethic.
We are talking about a program that provides food for needy children.
Your reasoning about cutting that program is that those children are lazy and shouldn't be given food because at age 5, they should be working 3 part time jobs.

It's ridiculous.

These are American citizens who, through no fault of their own, have been born into a situation where they literally are starving.

We live in a country that throws away more food than most countries produce.

No one in this country should ever be hungry, especially not a child.
Also know others that work a fulltime and a partime job to 'make' it.
IF one has the will, they will do it and NO, this isn't about the '5yo' that you keep bringing up like Frank stated about your programmed responses.
Once everyone is on the 'dole', who's gonna pay for it? YOU? Mr 'Educated'?
Don't look this up. I want to hear your guess. After all, the president got 55% of the vote, so take a guess.

What percentage of people do you think are currently "on the dole"?

And by that I mean welfare, not social security, not military family assistance programs, not medicaid, etc.

What percentage of Americans, after 4 years of DEEP recession, are on welfare? Care to guess?

Now, what percentage are on welfare and have no jobs whatsoever? Care to guess?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#186 Feb 21, 2013
OKAY wrote:
Or the honest hardworking souls that built this land.
You mean "slaves" right? The ones the built the South and Washington DC.

Or did you mean non-citizen immigrants, like the ones that built the railroads?
OKAY

United States

#187 Feb 22, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about a program that provides food for needy children.
Your reasoning about cutting that program is that those children are lazy and shouldn't be given food because at age 5, they should be working 3 part time jobs.
It's ridiculous.
These are American citizens who, through no fault of their own, have been born into a situation where they literally are starving.
We live in a country that throws away more food than most countries produce.
No one in this country should ever be hungry, especially not a child.
<quoted text>
Don't look this up. I want to hear your guess. After all, the president got 55% of the vote, so take a guess.
What percentage of people do you think are currently "on the dole"?
And by that I mean welfare, not social security, not military family assistance programs, not medicaid, etc.
What percentage of Americans, after 4 years of DEEP recession, are on welfare? Care to guess?
Now, what percentage are on welfare and have no jobs whatsoever? Care to guess?
I agree, no child should go hungry. And yet even with all of your handouts, there are many starving children.

I never mentioned 'cutting'. I said, put them to work for their keep. Is that so 'GAWD' awful?

Here are some stats:

More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.

And it seems that Americans increasingly want it that way. In 2011, a report by Globescan showed that the number of US citizens who believe in the strength of a free market economy dropped to 59 percent from 74 percent in the previous year, falling below Brazil and China. When Globescan first conducted this survey ten years ago, 80 percent of Americans favored a free market economic system.

Those with the lowest annual incomes were more likely to oppose a free market economy.

This year’s annual Index on Dependence on Government, released in February, found that since 2008, the American people’s dependence on government has grown by 23 percent. The US government broke a record last year, spending the most on federal assistance in the nation’s history.

The Heritage Foundation found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistant received $32,748 in annual benefits, which is more than an average American worker makes in a year. In 2011, the median annual paycheck was reported as $26,364.

http://rt.com/usa/half-government-million-per...

Seems about 1/3 of the US pop is on 'welfare'...there's more if you care to read about it.
OKAY

United States

#188 Feb 22, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "slaves" right? The ones the built the South and Washington DC.
Or did you mean non-citizen immigrants, like the ones that built the railroads?
What an azz...I am referring to the ones who went to the factories every day and produced for this country along every war effort. What about all of the 'family' farmers? Construction?

I can go on, but you 'should' get my drift by now.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#189 Feb 22, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, no child should go hungry. And yet even with all of your handouts, there are many starving children.
I never mentioned 'cutting'. I said, put them to work for their keep. Is that so 'GAWD' awful?
Yes, insisting that a 5 yr old child be forced to work a job for food while living in the fattest wealthiest country that has ever existed is "gawd awful".

What exactly do you expect this child to do? Work in a factor? Dig ditches? Repave streets?
Here are some stats:
More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.
Hold up for a second.

First of all, you are lumping in people on social security, welfare recipients, retired 5 star generals on pensions and Senators as one large group of "dependents".

You can't claim that the woman who works at the DMV is "dependent on the Government" the same way that an out of work single mother is "dependent on the government".

By your OWN admission, your plan would do NOTHING to reduce this number.

If you take all the people on welfare and give them jobs working for the government, then there is ZERO change in the number of people getting paid by the Government.
And it seems that Americans increasingly want it that way. In 2011, a report by Globescan showed that the number of US citizens who believe in the strength of a free market economy dropped to 59 percent from 74 percent in the previous year, falling below Brazil and China.
Perhaps that's because there is no such thing as a free market, and in 2011 people woke up to the fact that the system we living in is not a "free market" where people can succeed or fail. It's a market in which the wealthy can only succeed and the poor can only fail.
When Globescan first conducted this survey ten years ago, 80 percent of Americans favored a free market economic system.
Any yet NONE of them were in a free market system.

I bet if you asked, a majority of Americans would say they favor a democracy and that we shouldn't change our political system which (for the record) is NOT a democracy.

Polls which ask ignorant people for their opinions are worthless.
Those with the lowest annual incomes were more likely to oppose a free market economy.
That's not surprising, they are the ones more keenly aware that they don't live in a free market economy.
This year’s annual Index on Dependence on Government, released in February, found that since 2008, the American people’s dependence on government has grown by 23 percent. The US government broke a record last year, spending the most on federal assistance in the nation’s history.
Two things here:
#1) 2008 was the economic crash, so obviously more people have go on unemployment etc since the economy crash than directly before it.

#2) Comparing the amount spent without adjusting for inflation is meaningless. That's like saying any given movie this summer is more successful than Star Wars because ticket prices are now $12 whereas they used to be $3.

Find an adjusted for inflation index and compare today with the Great Depression.
The Heritage Foundation found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistant received $32,748 in annual benefits, which is more than an average American worker makes in a year. In 2011, the median annual paycheck was reported as $26,364.
http://rt.com/usa/half-government-million-per...
Seems about 1/3 of the US pop is on 'welfare'...there's more if you care to read about it.
Running out of space to write.
Will address you link in new box.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#190 Feb 22, 2013
OKAY wrote:
The Heritage Foundation found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistant received $32,748 in annual benefits, which is more than an average American worker makes in a year. In 2011, the median annual paycheck was reported as $26,364.
http://rt.com/usa/half-government-million-per...
Seems about 1/3 of the US pop is on 'welfare'...there's more if you care to read about it.
Let's set aside for a second that the Heritage Foundation is highly partisan.

Let's address this number that 1/3 of the population is on welfare.

In fact, ACTUAL welfare recipients are only 4% of the nation and that's in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Here's a more reliable site which actually talks about how mnay people get social security:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/sta...

The 1st chart is in "thousands", so the total is ~62 million, which includes all retirees, those disabled and families of who get SS.

The only way you get to your earlier number of 100+ million is by including the 62 million on SS.

So, are you saying that Social Security recipients should be put to work in order to receive their social security benefits?

You do recognize that people are living longer and that the baby boomers are retiring, right?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#191 Feb 22, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
What an azz...I am referring to the ones who went to the factories every day and produced for this country along every war effort. What about all of the 'family' farmers? Construction?
I can go on, but you 'should' get my drift by now.
And I'm pointing out that the factory workers, coal miners, share croppers were only a step above slaves in that they "technically" had freedom, but were put in situations from which escape was nearly impossible.

Have you not heard the coal mining song about the Company Store?
Frank

Fayetteville, NC

#192 Feb 24, 2013
That's right OKAY.

And as for you nuggin, try being honest, will ya?

Your politically tuned in enough to know that conservative candidates of color get crucified by the liberal establishment.

And whether or not I like ocmmunity organizers isn't the point. The point is that Herman Cain has an excellent education and business record and, in my opinion, makes him more qualified than the community organizer and juniior senator.

Googel Cain and check it out for yourself, the guy knows his stuff and it's not all neccessarily from being an "affirmative action" baby, lol, the guy has proven his worth. I'm the first one to admit that he's not the greatest speaker ( I know that from years ago listening to him fill-in as guest host Neil Boortz on the Neil Boortz show--sometimes he'd stand in for the guy and he totally sucked)

But anyways, the point is that Obama isn't the best and brightest, and neither was Romney. It often amazes me who gets picked for being the leader of the free-world. It boggles the mind how guys like Bush 2 or Obama can get elected, I can't make sense of it--however,admittedly, Bush was more qualified than Obama.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#193 Feb 24, 2013
Frank wrote:
That's right OKAY.
And as for you nuggin, try being honest, will ya?
Your politically tuned in enough to know that conservative candidates of color get crucified by the liberal establishment.
And whether or not I like ocmmunity organizers isn't the point. The point is that Herman Cain has an excellent education and business record and, in my opinion, makes him more qualified than the community organizer and juniior senator.
Frank, the people who dumped Cain were Conservatives, not liberals.

He didn't get the nomination. You guys failed to support him.

You can't blame the people who get no vote about what the people who do get a vote say.

You guys made him the front runner. Then you guys abandoned him.

If you want to have a debate about him vs Obama, then you should have made him the candidate.

As for his business record and "excellent" education - one of the most important things a President deals with is foreign policy. Cain demonstrated that he didn't know enough about foreign policy to be taken seriously.

He was better than Perry who couldn't remember three domestic programs he wanted to cut, but Cain was making up countries and getting other real countries confused.

We did eight years of that with Bush. We can't afford it again.
But anyways, the point is that Obama isn't the best and brightest, and neither was Romney. It often amazes me who gets picked for being the leader of the free-world. It boggles the mind how guys like Bush 2 or Obama can get elected, I can't make sense of it--however,admittedly, Bush was more qualified than Obama.
LOL. Hardly. Bush couldn't get out of his own way. Unless you consider "I want to please my dad" to be a qualification.

Bush wasn't President. Cheney was President. Bush just got to wear the suit and wave for the cameras.
Frank

Fayetteville, NC

#194 Feb 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the people who dumped Cain were Conservatives, not liberals.
He didn't get the nomination. You guys failed to support him.
You can't blame the people who get no vote about what the people who do get a vote say.
You guys made him the front runner. Then you guys abandoned him.
If you want to have a debate about him vs Obama, then you should have made him the candidate.
As for his business record and "excellent" education - one of the most important things a President deals with is foreign policy. Cain demonstrated that he didn't know enough about foreign policy to be taken seriously.
He was better than Perry who couldn't remember three domestic programs he wanted to cut, but Cain was making up countries and getting other real countries confused.
We did eight years of that with Bush. We can't afford it again.
<quoted text>
LOL. Hardly. Bush couldn't get out of his own way. Unless you consider "I want to please my dad" to be a qualification.
Bush wasn't President. Cheney was President. Bush just got to wear the suit and wave for the cameras.
Here's an old article titled:" The liberal lynching of Herman Cain--Black conservatives face double standard in hostile media"

It discusses some of what I'm talking about here.

Ever noticed how the liberal biased media crucifies us but refused to look much into Obama's radical past?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/...

"
Frank

Fayetteville, NC

#195 Feb 24, 2013
Here's a couple of pargraphs from that article, and it rings true doesn't it?

"When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President George H.W. Bush, liberals insisted he was unfit to sit on the high court. This was because Anita Hill, a former female subordinate, accused him of “sexual harassment.” The core of her complaint was that Mr. Thomas on several occasions had made sexually inappropriate comments to her. For Democratic leftists, this was the ultimate disqualifier: a dirty mouth.

Yet when President Clinton was in office, the same liberals excused far more egregious - and criminal - behavior. Mr. Clinton was accused of exposing himself to Paula Jones, threatening her with losing her job if she didn’t perform sexual acts. Kathleen Willey alleged that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. In the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Broaddrick accused - in painful detail - Mr. Clinton of having raped her. The president engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the White House and then lied under oath, suborned perjury and abused his office to cover it up. Mr. Clinton was a sexual predator who presided over the most lawless, scandal-ridden administration in memory. But Mr. Clinton was and remains a liberal icon - a charming rogue who just can’t seem to keep his hands off the ladies."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#196 Feb 24, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's an old article titled:" The liberal lynching of Herman Cain--Black conservatives face double standard in hostile media"
It discusses some of what I'm talking about here.
Ever noticed how the liberal biased media crucifies us but refused to look much into Obama's radical past?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/...
"
I looked at the article. It's an opinion piece by the way.

It cites the fact that Maher called Cain stupid. I didn't see the show, but I'll assume that that's true. Bill Maher calls most Conservatives stupid.

He CERTAINLY called Bachmann stupid.

In fact....
Here he is calling Bachmann retarded
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

Here he is calling Perry stupid


Here he is calling Gingrich stupid
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Here he is calling Romney stupid
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

So, if the charge is that Maher is trying to take down Cain because he's black and not because he was catapulted to the position of front runner, then why is it that Maher said pretty much the exact same stuff about each and every front runner before and after Cain was in the lead?

Attacks on Cain may have been unfounded. I doubt he's actually stupid. But, like George W and his dad, how you say what you say can make you come across dumb even if what you are saying is valid.

As for Obama's "radical past", how far in the past are we talking? Reagan was the head of SAG, that's a union. Does that mean he later wasn't a Conservative candidate because he was a communist?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#197 Feb 24, 2013
Frank wrote:
Here's a couple of pargraphs from that article, and it rings true doesn't it?
"When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President George H.W. Bush, liberals insisted he was unfit to sit on the high court. This was because Anita Hill, a former female subordinate, accused him of “sexual harassment.” The core of her complaint was that Mr. Thomas on several occasions had made sexually inappropriate comments to her. For Democratic leftists, this was the ultimate disqualifier: a dirty mouth.
Yet when President Clinton was in office, the same liberals excused far more egregious - and criminal - behavior. Mr. Clinton was accused of exposing himself to Paula Jones, threatening her with losing her job if she didn’t perform sexual acts. Kathleen Willey alleged that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. In the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Broaddrick accused - in painful detail - Mr. Clinton of having raped her. The president engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the White House and then lied under oath, suborned perjury and abused his office to cover it up. Mr. Clinton was a sexual predator who presided over the most lawless, scandal-ridden administration in memory. But Mr. Clinton was and remains a liberal icon - a charming rogue who just can’t seem to keep his hands off the ladies."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
A couple of issues here:

#1) I agree that the Hill stuff was over the top. It was done during a time of MASSIVE political correctness gone out of control.

#2) The opposition to Thomas was not because he was black but because he was conservative. There is always a desire to tip the balance one way or another. Had Thomas been white and Conservative, the same sort of protests would have happened.

#3) Clinton got a different treatment because Clinton was engaged in consensual behavior with Lewinski. AND because the era of political correctness had begun to swing back the other way.

Had the Clinton stuff happened at the same time that the Thomas stuff happened, he would have gotten different treatment.

Stuff can't be looked at in a vacuum. Strum Thurmond was a segregationist with an out of wedlock black kid. Had that come out early in his career it would have been Earth shattering. Instead it came out after her retired or died (can't remember) and it was more of a curiosity.

What's going on culturally matters.
Frank

Fayetteville, NC

#198 Feb 24, 2013
Nuggin, when it comes to your supreme leader's radical past, you're just playing dumb, lol.
Frank

Fayetteville, NC

#199 Feb 24, 2013
"Mr. Clinton was accused of exposing himself to Paula Jones, threatening her with losing her job if she didn’t perform sexual acts. Kathleen Willey alleged that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. In the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Broaddrick accused - in painful detail - Mr. Clinton of having raped her. "

Consensual?

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#200 Feb 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's set aside for a second that the Heritage Foundation is highly partisan.
Let's address this number that 1/3 of the population is on welfare.
In fact, ACTUAL welfare recipients are only 4% of the nation and that's in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Here's a more reliable site which actually talks about how mnay people get social security:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/sta...
The 1st chart is in "thousands", so the total is ~62 million, which includes all retirees, those disabled and families of who get SS.
The only way you get to your earlier number of 100+ million is by including the 62 million on SS.
So, are you saying that Social Security recipients should be put to work in order to receive their social security benefits?
You do recognize that people are living longer and that the baby boomers are retiring, right?
Putting words in OKAY's mouth by puttin' on the spin on every point...

You need to be in politics...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#201 Feb 24, 2013
Frank wrote:
"Mr. Clinton was accused of exposing himself to Paula Jones, threatening her with losing her job if she didn’t perform sexual acts. Kathleen Willey alleged that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. In the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Broaddrick accused - in painful detail - Mr. Clinton of having raped her. "
Consensual?
I was talking Lewinski, I'm aware of some of these accusations. I'm always aware that at least one of these women later recanted and admitted to having been paid by some wealthy conservative to make the accusations in the first place.

However, the point is, it wasn't the liberals who decided that the sex stuff from Cain's past was a problem. It was Conservatives.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#202 Feb 24, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting words in OKAY's mouth by puttin' on the spin on every point...
You need to be in politics...
It's not really "spin" when I point out that claiming that Generals in the army and US Senators are "dependent on the Government" and therefore part of the welfare problem is dishonest.
Frank

Fayetteville, NC

#203 Feb 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not really "spin" when I point out that claiming that Generals in the army and US Senators are "dependent on the Government" and therefore part of the welfare problem is dishonest.
Military guys earned their pensions. When I say this I'm speaking for the regular military folk, not generals, however generals earn their money as well.

While I don't always agree with the reasons for the many wars that we fight (oil, defending the "chosen people", etc.)---we earned our money.

People in the military have to put up with too much bs not to get a pension in exchange for serving 20.

We're not a part of the "Welfare" problem."

Let me air-lift your ass to the desert with a mchine gun first and then give your opinion.

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 3 min provegodexists 3,320
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 13 min paganbirdkeeper666 14,606
New Discovery Shows No God Needed To Create Life 24 min God the son 227
Atonement? 51 min God the son 172
++++++++ THE PROPHET of JESUS CHRIST ++++++++ 1 hr hmmmmm 5
The Social Harm of Religion 2 hr Hardcore 84
Catholics Mobbing Church Pews 2 hr Hardcore 6
Houston Mayor Says City’s Church Sermon Subpoen... 12 hr 15th Dalai Lama 59

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE