So you feel that able bodied adults should be allowed to choose to not work and they should be supported by other people? Why should they be supported? Supported by whom?

What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others.

If we are to talk about what she says, we must talk about what she says, not what we think she obviously meant.

If we accept that we know better than she does what she means when she says something, then we are degradign ourselves to the level of scummy Bible scholars, who purport to know better what God means than God himself.

So let's stich with what she said, please, not what we think she obviously meant.

Sir, we are not talking about what I feel. We are talking about the stupidity imbedded in the statement, in that quote. If we talk about what I feel, I feel like a bj and a coffee, quite frankly.

I suggest we stick to the topic.

You are sadly mistaken. The stupidity is embedded in your head, not the quote.

I had forgotten how willfully ignorant you people were. I've about hit my quota of dealing with fools in just 2 days of being back.

She's obviously taking about people who can provide for themselves, but choose not to.

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!

I'm not a big fan of hers, but what you said is a lie or perhaps you are just mistaken. Regardless, it's not true.

how do you know it;s not true, and how can you justify your attitude. I think it must be possible to post an opinion with out name calling and degrading statements

entitlement programs are necessary & need to be regulated, any wealthy individuals and corporations need to pay their proportional share in taxes. To me that is more of an issue than assistance to the unemployed & disabled

Chrysler. GM and the banks need to REPAY the taxpayers - that alone could fund assistance

its irrelevant in most situations , because most assistance has fairly rigorous requirements that people

A) are trying to

or

B) are unable to work


so it is not set up to help those who WILL NOT work,,,

...her position on weakening programs that benefit ALL without jobs says clearly that she means to punish all unemployed this way and not just the ones who refuse to go out and get a job or put in the work necessary to keep one. Her words exclude can’t work (for whatever reason)[;] her motions and intended actions include them.

Chrysler and GM did both repay the taxpayers

Im not sure about the banks

well that is good to know - especially if they repaid dollar for dollar! that is awesome! My apology - I am sooo apolitical harmony - not surprised I'm prolly the last person on earth who knows that

well that is good to know - especially if they repaid dollar for dollar! that is awesome! My apology - I am sooo apolitical harmony - not surprised I'm prolly the last person on earth who knows that

Hey. I did not even know what monies they ought to repay. But then again, I live in Canada.

Here the situation is simpler. WE have fewer people, more oil than capita to sell abroad, and we have a happy and healthy tri-party system.

A tri-party system would appear to make things more complicated, no?

Well, no. Conservatives is a party which is made up of hard working honest rich people, and they have centre-of-the road policies. Supported by the rich, the rednecks, and the sensible. The Liberals, which is like the Democrats in the USA, are centre-of-the-road, and the politicians are lying cheating thieves. Middle-class and immigrants-supported. Then there is a third major party, NDP, which is a bit like communists. Hard working, poor people. Honest, too, both politicians and voters. They like to spend money: rob from the rich, give to the poor, but they don't pocket any. Supported by the fringe, by trade unions, by bleeding-heart do-gooders who would be otherwise helping the poor in church kitchens or going on missions, bu they are atheists, so they can't pretty well do that. The NDP is NOT supported by the working class, not even by the blue collar startum, unless they are in a trade union.

So what do we do. Most people would prefer a Liberal gov, and mostly that's the case. The Libs go on, until they accumulate too many scandals in their file and rank, and then the voters vote PC (progressive conservatives). The PC does an excellent job at governing, and a really, but really pathetic job at self-promotion to the public media. The state news agency hates them, the main media hate them, everybody hates them, but I like them.

There is always a period when the country is put back into order under the PCs, and when enough time has passed to forget the Liberal thieving, then people become once again sentimental and vote the Liberals in.

NDP is a minority party. They are vocal, and they oppose everything. Therefore they are treated by public opinion as a likable, sweet, but not-to-be-taken-seriously party. Not very much unlike a late teen is treated in the family, who is rebellious, but people look the other way, coz they know it's just their nature, the rebellious youth mean no harm.

There is a fourth party, a French separatist party, whose main objective comes to play in case there is no 51% vote for any one party (of the two) to form a government after an election. Government must be formed by a 51% majority. If there is no such lot, then the French party will put its support on the auction bloc, and sell itself to the highest bidder to form a coalition with. Their name is even Bloc Quebecois. This is serious, folks, look up their names in the Canadian Government website if you don't believe me.

Canadians therefore are not so ferocious about politics as Americans. Why? For one, we have a choice outside of issues. Here the issues are not a concern at all at election time, coz a party always votes in uniformity in parliament. No voice for the individual representatives. It's the party policy, vote for it, like it or not.

So the public is not bogged down with details, during elections we only have to look at the billboards and candidate-signs on the side of the road, and basically that's all the research we'd ever need to do during elections as a regular voter.

The public is not bogged down, so we can still watch a lot of tv and DVDs during a campaign. Free sex and unabashed adultery are unfortunately OUT for the time being, they are under repairs and we forgot to bring our ticket again to get it out of the shop. But if we could use them, politics would not interfere. A prime minister even articled that once, and made it law. "Government has no say in what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation." This is the single most famous Canadian political event in our entire history as a nation. This put Canada on the international political map. A prime minister before him got the Nobel Peace prize, but nobody knows when or why, or even that he did.

The other reason for being less political is that we are less angry, because we simply have less to worry about. Our banks are secure, we don't need to fear starvation if we lose our jobs, we don't need to sell the house and the kids down the river if we get seriously ill, because there is medicare. The medicare is financially managable because large settlements for malpractice by doctors are not the norm. In America, and I don't live there, so please correct me, there is no medicare, so people lose their homes potentially if they have a need for a liver transplant. Therefore Americans worry about their health, wealth, and existence. WE don't. And here, again, please if someone knows the exact figures, please correct me, the malpractice insce is ten thousand dollars a year for an average doctor, while in the USA it's like a hundred and fifty thousand. I don't stand behind these numbers.

A third reason is the gun law -- we walk the streets of Canadian cities in self-assured safety. The only paranoia is over child abductions. In the States people know that they can be made holy or else holey via rapture or via ruptured through the skin by a shower of bullets by any one on the street. That's another worry.

And lastly, it's the sense of humour we, Canadians, boast which is soooo very superior to American. True, the talk shows at midnight are way funnier in the States. No contest. Where Canadians lead in the laughter is the French Canadian movies. For one thing, they speak in French in them, so that alone is hilarious to listen to. For the other, these movies are kind, slowly and gently building, subtle, funny, mildly political, and like I said, extremely funny. These movies are made to target slightly higher IQ range than American movies. USA, Hollywood and Disney movies target the 80 to 120 IQ range, with the most shows written for the 85-105 level. French movies made in Canada are aimed at the 100-135 IQ range, with the bulk of the audience assumed at 110 to 120 in IQ points.

The English Canadians make no movies, they just watch Amy TV on TV.

So this is why Canadians are laughing all the way to wherever they are going, and this is why the Americans are really obnoxious and boorish and go to foreign lands to shoot up people into a heap of corpses and let the Jews of Israel take the runt of it by paying for it in bad reputation.

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/

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/

I love how you take stuff out of context. Not that I agree with her statement at all but she uses the word "will". Someone who will not work is someone who refuses to work not someone who wants to work but is unemployed.

I agree. but does she offer any solutions to verifying whether people 'will' not work as opposed to whether they 'can' not work or whether they can not find work?

the system is already set up for those who 'can' not work and not for those who 'will' not work , although some are deceptive enough to get through those cracks,,,