100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: New Right Wing Rhetoric | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
from what i read read further. This is from one of those "silly a$$" liberal blogs that we heard about earlier. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107979.html?pageno=2 In May 2006, the country's worst outbreak of violence in 10 years began, with Islamist militias, called the Somali Islamic Courts Council (SICC), battling rival warlords. On June 6, the Islamist militia seized control of the capital, Mogadishu, and established control in much of the south. Somalia's transitional government, led by President Abdullahi Yusuf and situated in Baidoa, spent months engaged in unsuccessful peace negotiations with the Islamic Courts Council. In the meantime, neighboring Ethiopia, which has clashed in the past with Somalia's Islamists and considers them a threat to regional security, began amassing troops on the border. In mid-December, Ethiopia launched air strikes against the Islamists, and in a matter of days Ethiopian ground troops and Somali soldiers loyal to the transitional government regained control of Mogadishu. A week later most of the Islamists had been forced to flee the country. Ethiopia announced that its troops would remain in the country until stability was assured and a functional central government had been established, ending Somalia's 15 years of anarchy. Read more: Somalia: History, Geography, Government, and Culture — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107979.html?pageno=2#ixzz1NxvRD2O2 This is not a functioning central government. In fact it is an extreme conservative paradise. "Limited" government, absolutely no gun control, absolutely no business regulation, absolutely no federal income taxes. Somalia is a country with total freedom. We hear about Somalia's new business start-ups in the news. These are the businesses that high-jack oil tankers on the high seas. still have to lie, huh... saving face? lol, its what you libs do best.. "Just thought you should know that trying to sound intelligent and using insults is counter productive. People wont take you seriously if you can't make a point without insulting. " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from what i read read further. This is from one of those "silly a$$" liberal blogs that we heard about earlier. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107979.html?pageno=2 In May 2006, the country's worst outbreak of violence in 10 years began, with Islamist militias, called the Somali Islamic Courts Council (SICC), battling rival warlords. On June 6, the Islamist militia seized control of the capital, Mogadishu, and established control in much of the south. Somalia's transitional government, led by President Abdullahi Yusuf and situated in Baidoa, spent months engaged in unsuccessful peace negotiations with the Islamic Courts Council. In the meantime, neighboring Ethiopia, which has clashed in the past with Somalia's Islamists and considers them a threat to regional security, began amassing troops on the border. In mid-December, Ethiopia launched air strikes against the Islamists, and in a matter of days Ethiopian ground troops and Somali soldiers loyal to the transitional government regained control of Mogadishu. A week later most of the Islamists had been forced to flee the country. Ethiopia announced that its troops would remain in the country until stability was assured and a functional central government had been established, ending Somalia's 15 years of anarchy. Read more: Somalia: History, Geography, Government, and Culture — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107979.html?pageno=2#ixzz1NxvRD2O2 This is not a functioning central government. In fact it is an extreme conservative paradise. "Limited" government, absolutely no gun control, absolutely no business regulation, absolutely no federal income taxes. Somalia is a country with total freedom. We hear about Somalia's new business start-ups in the news. These are the businesses that high-jack oil tankers on the high seas. still have to lie, huh... saving face? lol, its what you libs do best.. "Just thought you should know that trying to sound intelligent and using insults is counter productive. People wont take you seriously if you can't make a point without insulting. " then why does it also say: On October 14, 2010, diplomat Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo was appointed the new Prime Minister of Somalia. The former Premier Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke resigned the month before following a protracted dispute with President Sharif over a proposed draft constitution.[128] what does that mean? it means there is a government in place, contrary to the lies you posted... so you can keep repeating the same thing over and over, or quit lying to try to prove a false point... it's up to you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what does that mean? it means there is a government in place, contrary to the lies you posted... .. it's up to you Yes, it is up to me, not you. It obviously means that because 50 or a hundred people got together to vote somebody to be a leader doesn't mean that there is a functioning central government. My local Boy Scout Troop could do that. so you can keep repeating the same thing over and over, or quit lying to try to prove a false point. "Just thought you should know that trying to sound intelligent and using insults is counter productive. People wont take you seriously if you can't make a point without insulting. " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why.  Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's pathetic that there is a whole segment of the population that lies awake at night worrying that somewhere, someplace, somebody is getting something that he doesn't deserve. Welfare appears to be such a miniscule percentage of the budget , that it just doesn't seem to be worth thinking about.
I can assure you that there are many people in the upper 2% that are getting plenty that they don't deserve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is up to me, not you. It obviously means that because 50 or a hundred people got together to vote somebody to be a leader doesn't mean that there is a functioning central government. My local Boy Scout Troop could do that. then your local boy scout troop has a functioning central government... just because everyone doesn't agree with it doesn't make it any less a government...seems like everyone in the UN agrees with it, but not you.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's pathetic that there is a whole segment of the population that lies awake at night worrying that somewhere, someplace, somebody is getting something that he doesn't deserve. Welfare appears to be such a miniscule percentage of the budget , that it just doesn't seem to be worth thinking about. I can assure you that there are many people in the upper 2% that are getting plenty that they don't deserve. and some of them worked to get that upper 2%, not by sponging off the government... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. blah blah blah....oh poor me, i'm so unlucky, i can't get a job... i'll just sit at home and let the government pay my bills, since they owe me anyway... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. blah blah blah....oh poor me, i'm so unlucky, i can't get a job... i'll just sit at home and let the government pay my bills, since they owe me anyway... So who thinks that? The ignorant person who has never been there that is who thinks something so stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. blah blah blah....oh poor me, i'm so unlucky, i can't get a job... i'll just sit at home and let the government pay my bills, since they owe me anyway... So who thinks that? The ignorant person who has never been there that is who thinks something so stupid. maybe i can get the government to pay for my kids being born too, since i am so unlucky, and i can get free healthcare, free food, money for gas to go to the beer store, they'll pay my rent and electric for me...and all i have to do is vote democratic! woohoo, you guys are right, i think i'll vote liberal from now on... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. blah blah blah....oh poor me, i'm so unlucky, i can't get a job... i'll just sit at home and let the government pay my bills, since they owe me anyway... So who thinks that? The ignorant person who has never been there that is who thinks something so stupid. maybe i can get the government to pay for my kids being born too, since i am so unlucky, and i can get free healthcare, free food, money for gas to go to the beer store, they'll pay my rent and electric for me...and all i have to do is vote democratic! woohoo, you guys are right, i think i'll vote liberal from now on... And only the ignorant think that too. No one who suffers a loss thinks that way. So it has to be those who have never been there who think that stupidly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. blah blah blah....oh poor me, i'm so unlucky, i can't get a job... i'll just sit at home and let the government pay my bills, since they owe me anyway... So who thinks that? The ignorant person who has never been there that is who thinks something so stupid. maybe i can get the government to pay for my kids being born too, since i am so unlucky, and i can get free healthcare, free food, money for gas to go to the beer store, they'll pay my rent and electric for me...and all i have to do is vote democratic! woohoo, you guys are right, i think i'll vote liberal from now on... And only the ignorant think that too. No one who suffers a loss thinks that way. So it has to be those who have never been there who think that stupidly. since i have seen such a loss, i could probably get the government to by me a new house too... and then i'll need a new car, because the neighbors would talk, and some furniture, TV's, cable and internet hook up, cell phone, new computers, mine is 2 years old now, out of date... sure is a great government we have here! gotta love those liberals! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the whole point of the republicans view on this is the more you give people, the more they want and the less they try. if we were to cut down on some of these spendings, maybe people would try to go get a job, quit living off welfare, and not feel so at ease with food stamps. that doesnt pan out when you look at the unemployment rate since 'welfare' began, it hasnt really changed so much based upon people who receive it so much as it has changed with businesses hiring practices(sending jobs oversees, hiring illegal immigrants, computerizing) its hard to live off of welfare, whats given in most cases is a pittance and most people would probably rather have more if they could find EMPLOYMENT that would offer it i don't think any knows since it hasn't really been tried... all dems think the same way, just give them more...if people are getting a free ride, why should they stop the taxi? LOL it must have been some undercover "want to be" lazies who made this analogy to begin with, huh? To assume makes a sses anyway. But to assume that the more help given someone the less they appreciate it or the less they will do is bogus and shows the integrity of those who say it. it's been proven by psychologists, lots of studies have been done on this issue... but it seems to me that the people that argue against it are the people that get the most from the government... i don't see the hard working people saying we should give the lazy people more... Proven...lol! Prove it and don't tell me to do it myself since you are the one stating the studies. It seems to be a bunch of people are making assumptions making a sses of themselves because they can't know it personally because they have been lucky enough in life not to have to ask for help. Siting studies that can't be done accurately No problem with the not proving what you post, we know why. Luck, yea it is lucky when that tornado misses you or your job. Yea it is luck when that hurricane misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when that earthquake misses you and your job. Yea it is lucky when the the economy doesn't make your job go away and 10,000s of others in the same area you live. Yea luck plays a big part in having a job and not having things happen to you and your job. Only those who have never suffered a life tragedy or life changing circumstance that effected them or their job can sit on some proverbial high horse talking down to all others with their self imaginary laziness crap. It always shows their own ignorance. i never said someone that has there house blown away doesn't need any help...are you telling me that the 30 million people out of work right now had there house blown away? quit trying to change the subject to try to prove your right... there are lots of jobs out there, and anyone (that hasn't had there house blown away) can find work if they try... I never said one tornado was the problem people face. There are lots of reasons for jobs to go away and for people to have to be out of work. It is the ignorant that blame laziness as the problem that is the problem here. They are ignorant because they have been lucky enough not to face the many problems that cause unemployment or umemployability that cannot be helped or stopped. blah blah blah....oh poor me, i'm so unlucky, i can't get a job... i'll just sit at home and let the government pay my bills, since they owe me anyway... So who thinks that? The ignorant person who has never been there that is who thinks something so stupid. maybe i can get the government to pay for my kids being born too, since i am so unlucky, and i can get free healthcare, free food, money for gas to go to the beer store, they'll pay my rent and electric for me...and all i have to do is vote democratic! woohoo, you guys are right, i think i'll vote liberal from now on... And only the ignorant think that too. No one who suffers a loss thinks that way. So it has to be those who have never been there who think that stupidly. since i have seen such a loss, i could probably get the government to by me a new house too... and then i'll need a new car, because the neighbors would talk, and some furniture, TV's, cable and internet hook up, cell phone, new computers, mine is 2 years old now, out of date... sure is a great government we have here! gotta love those liberals! You have suffered no loss. So now you have to tell stories. No one gets that from the government anyway. What a waste of time this has been. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
big loss, lots of unluckyness... maybe i can get 2 cars!...
|
|
|
|
|
