Previous 1 3 4 5
Topic: If You Are Unemployed, You Should Starve
Bestinshow's photo
Fri 11/11/11 02:02 PM
Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.”

Here is the video:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/08/michele-bachmann-says-if-you-are-unemployed-you-should-starve/

Optomistic69's photo
Fri 11/11/11 02:32 PM
Bush Palin and now Bachmann.....I suppose 3 out of 300 million is not bad.

Sojourning_Soul's photo
Fri 11/11/11 02:46 PM
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Fri 11/11/11 02:59 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/08/michele-bachmann-says-if-you-are-unemployed-you-should-starve/

I would like to see Ron Paul win the nomination, but if the rest in the field want to had it to him on a platter, I can accept that! rofl

They all show him to be the sanest man in the room without him having to prove it!

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:03 PM
/yawn

If someone can work, but chooses not to, then that person should starve. Nothing controversial there. Unless you believe the employed should be forced to work in the service of the lazy.

Sojourning_Soul's photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:08 PM
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Fri 11/11/11 03:11 PM

/yawn

If someone can work, but chooses not to, then that person should starve. Nothing controversial there. Unless you believe the employed should be forced to work in the service of the lazy.


Here we go again.....

You obviously didn't read the text on the link page.

Are you going to provide the jobs for those who wish to and can't

You miss the whole point, or refuse to see it, but every positive needs a negative I guess to validate it as a positive.

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:12 PM
Let me explain to you why you are wrong and this is much ado about nothing.


Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.


You see, the Michelle Bachmann was talking about people who refuse to work, not people who are unemployed. Anyone who got worked up over this should feel stupid. But I know many of you, so I realize that you won't even admit your mistake and will carry on in your invincible armor of stupidity.

Optomistic69's photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:14 PM

/yawn

If someone can work, but chooses not to, then that person should starve. Nothing controversial there. Unless you believe the employed should be forced to work in the service of the lazy.


We have reached the age of Technological Unemployment and you are living in the past.

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:18 PM


/yawn

If someone can work, but chooses not to, then that person should starve. Nothing controversial there. Unless you believe the employed should be forced to work in the service of the lazy.


We have reached the age of Technological Unemployment and you are living in the past.



Optomistic69's photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:19 PM



/yawn

If someone can work, but chooses not to, then that person should starve. Nothing controversial there. Unless you believe the employed should be forced to work in the service of the lazy.


We have reached the age of Technological Unemployment and you are living in the past.





Thought so.....Living in the Past

Sojourning_Soul's photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:29 PM
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Fri 11/11/11 03:30 PM
If certain people would read the commentary on the page before replying.....

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

The key word here is "currently"!

Some people! frustrated

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:32 PM
Edited by Spidercmb on Fri 11/11/11 03:34 PM


If certain people would read the commentary on the page before replying.....

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

Some people! frustrated


So you consider a journalists interpretation of what Michele Bachmann said to be a better source than an actual quote by her? That's an strange way to look at things, but then again people who don't value truth over winning come up with all sorts of interesting ways of justifying their beliefs.

EDIT:

Here is the quote in question, show me where she said that someone who isn't currently working should starve.


Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.

Sojourning_Soul's photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:36 PM
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Fri 11/11/11 03:41 PM



If certain people would read the commentary on the page before replying.....

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

Some people! frustrated


So you consider a journalists interpretation of what Michele Bachmann said to be a better source than an actual quote by her? That's an strange way to look at things, but then again people who don't value truth over winning come up with all sorts of interesting ways of justifying their beliefs.


OK, we won't mention cutting the safety nets that seniors, disabled and unemployed rely on, AND HAVE PAID IN TO SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEM to get by.....and the world is a better place with her in it...

YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU?

The drugs are'nt working!

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 03:46 PM
Edited by Spidercmb on Fri 11/11/11 03:50 PM




If certain people would read the commentary on the page before replying.....

Yesterday morning during a speech at the Family Research Council in Washington, Michele Bachmann bashed the unemployed in perhaps the most heartless way possible. After vowing to weaken social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, Bachmann said that if you are currently not working, you should not be eating.

Some people! frustrated


So you consider a journalists interpretation of what Michele Bachmann said to be a better source than an actual quote by her? That's an strange way to look at things, but then again people who don't value truth over winning come up with all sorts of interesting ways of justifying their beliefs.


OK, we won't mention cutting the safety nets that seniors, disabled and unemployed rely on, AND HAVE PAID IN TO SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEM to get by.....and the world is a better place with her in it...

YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU?

The drugs are'nt working!


Okay, I get it. You think you can read her mind. She never said that the unemployed should be starved to death, but you have convinced yourself that you have read her mind and know that is what she really wants. Okay, well, I'm just going to back away slowly...

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 05:00 PM

OK, we won't mention cutting the safety nets that seniors, disabled and unemployed rely on, AND HAVE PAID IN TO SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEM to get by.....and the world is a better place with her in it...

YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU?

The drugs are'nt working!


Hilarious! The video is 22 seconds long and doesn't mention any of the things you claim are in the video.

Optomistic69's photo
Fri 11/11/11 05:05 PM


OK, we won't mention cutting the safety nets that seniors, disabled and unemployed rely on, AND HAVE PAID IN TO SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEM to get by.....and the world is a better place with her in it...

YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU?

The drugs are'nt working!


Hilarious! The video is 22 seconds long and doesn't mention any of the things you claim are in the video.


I thought you were backing away slowly

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 05:06 PM



OK, we won't mention cutting the safety nets that seniors, disabled and unemployed rely on, AND HAVE PAID IN TO SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEM to get by.....and the world is a better place with her in it...

YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU?

The drugs are'nt working!


Hilarious! The video is 22 seconds long and doesn't mention any of the things you claim are in the video.


I thought you were backing away slowly


I did and then I came back armed. No way I want to be in here with a bunch of "psychics" without some sort of protection.

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 05:12 PM
:laughing:

boredinaz06's photo
Fri 11/11/11 05:18 PM


Bachman is an idiot just like Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Cain and Hussein! She is one of these ****tards that believes the earth is 3000 years old.

no photo
Fri 11/11/11 05:27 PM



Bachman is an idiot just like Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Cain and Hussein! She is one of these ****tards that believes the earth is 3000 years old.


When did Michelle Bachmann say that the earth is 3,000 years old?

heavenlyboy34's photo
Fri 11/11/11 06:04 PM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/08/michele-bachmann-says-if-you-are-unemployed-you-should-starve/

I would like to see Ron Paul win the nomination, but if the rest in the field want to had it to him on a platter, I can accept that! rofl

They all show him to be the sanest man in the room without him having to prove it!
drinker The question is: are Republican primary voters smart enough to vote for RP this time?shocked :thumbsup: what

Previous 1 3 4 5