Left leaning press crying their liberal tears again, butt hurt by Trump referring to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas.... So what???? OK, maybe could have made it more clear in front of the WW2 Navaho Code Talkers. What I got out of it was just reminding us how Warren took advantage of the system by procuring mortgage loans by claiming to be a Native American. Awful woman. Another cheating, lying politician. (most are, both sides of the aisle, IMO) But she is dangerous and needs to be taken down a few notches, sooner than later. Eff her for claiming it a racial slur. She was being called out! Nothing but a DNA blood test is going to prove whether she is, or was just lying..... God I hate that woman.....

Really???

What is your question?

What is your question?
Your sanity.

Oh it gets better Jeff....To close this "Breaking News" story, the reporters are even more outraged that the ceremony to honor our Native American heroes was done right beneath the portrait of Andrew Jackson! And you know what a bad man he was.... What he did to the Indians and all.... Cripes, don't we ALL have more to do than this death by a thousand cuts?

Oh it gets better Jeff....To close this "Breaking News" story, the reporters are even more outraged that the ceremony to honor our Native American heroes was done right beneath the portrait of Andrew Jackson! And you know what a bad man he was.... What he did to the Indians and all.... Cripes, don't we ALL have more to do than this death by a thousand cuts?
The Andrew Jackson part was irony, Trump's comments were those of an idiot. Are you not grasping that?

The Andrew Jackson part was irony, Trump's comments were those of an idiot. Are you not grasping that?

Prone to idiotic statements and timing? Yes. Was not the time. But calling her out and pressuring her for what she is needs being done. Again, he needed to have been more clear. And preferably at another time. But in the big picture, not worthy of the reaction.

He made it all about himself Instead of honoring some Heroes. Similar to what he did at the CIA event a few days after being elected president. He's not fit to be president of the US.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I swear to god I am convinced that all of Trumps antics are scripted. It’s too predictable. Why would this be scripted? To polarize the American people and distract them from the real problems that this country faces.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Prone to idiotic statements and timing? Yes. Was not the time. But calling her out and pressuring her for what she is needs being done. Again, he needed to have been more clear. And preferably at another time. But in the big picture, not worthy of the reaction.
Neither you or I would have gone there regardless of our thoughts...that is the bigger issue.

Warren is absolutely disgusting. Everything about her is ugly, she just gets uglier and uglier. It's almost as if she wasn't born to human parents, but as if she was conceived by hypocrisy.

She attacks banks for making money off student loans, but it's OK when she gets rich teaching one class, at a job she got by lying about her heritage.

She makes Hilary look cute and cuddly, she really does. And brother, that's saying something.

Wouldn’t term and sperm limits be nice? Boot them all out. And family members.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I find it sad that Trump couldn't honor these guys without taking a swipe at her. She doesn't deserve to be brought up when talking about these amazing heroes. But that's pure, vintage, classic Trump. I don't like it.

He's also not even a little bit wrong for wanting to attack her, but not in that setting.

again Trump and his supporters have no respect for the office of President of the United States ..

How dare they say MAGA if this is their vision of what America should look like and whats acceptable behavior of our POTUS .. sorry I wont accept it

If that comment didn't make you chuckle though....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's also not even a little bit wrong for wanting to attack her, but not in that setting.



I don't know...think about it....what better time to attack a fake indian than when you are surrounded by real indians...the code talkers seemed to really enjoy Trump

I swear to god I am convinced that all of Trumps antics are scripted.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he's hired the writers of South Park...

If that comment didn't make you chuckle though....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it was hysterical. Right up there with the tweet about the Short Fat guy in NK. Some times he is comic gold.

Sad thing is there were probably people who thought it was funny and appropriate. Oh, now wait...

again Trump and his supporters have no respect for the office of President of the United States ..

How dare they say MAGA if this is their vision of what America should look like and whats acceptable behavior of our POTUS .. sorry I wont accept it

To be clear here, I voted against Hillary. Period. Mission accomplished. So now on to the collateral damage. Similar to the previous two terms, I am praying we can survive the four years without too much more damage being done. I am a right leaning independent contractor who feels the Dems over tax the very core of the economy, small business! The current POTUS makes me cringe. His lack of tact and respect for others is dangerous and embarrassing. But instead of su cking it up, as I did during Obama years, his detractors are contributing to the fracturing of our people! But don't put me in the supporter/minion camp. The lesser of two evils is pretty awful.

What's to say that hasn't already been said before, he just continues to be an embarrassment, who hasn't he disrespected at this point? I'm surprised he didn't follow that inappropriate comment up by stating I think you redskins should kick her off the reservation. He literally has no control of his twisted mind and sick inappropriate sense of humor; if he even considers it humor.

I thought it was hysterical. Right up there with the tweet about the Short Fat guy in NK. Some times he is comic gold.

:jester:

you get the comedic benefit...and then the outrage form the left is icing on the cake

:jester:

you get the comedic benefit...and then the outrage form the left is icing on the cake

It is pretty funny listening to him. Makes you wonder what type of people voted for him (evangelicals LOL). I mentioned to my wife last night that I wonder what type of woman Melania was to even sit w/him for 10 min. on the first date w/o getting up and walking away.

After 8 years of your snarky whining this is nothing.

Trump's comments were those of an idiot. Are you not grasping that?

Oh. it is grasped. One idiot flake calling out another idiot fake.

Terrible setting, saying that in front of those people, Code Talkers, men that served with distinction (that many on the left probably likes only because they were victims).

Hilarious yet unsurprising that the media calls Trump out on it rather than years of Chief Sh!tt!ng Bull for lying about it in the first place.

If that comment didn't make you chuckle though....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course it did. But I would have advised him, if you want to throw elbows at Warren (and that's a very worthwhile hobby), don't do it at that ceremony, do it later. This is who he is. If my IRA is going to increase 25% for each of the next 3 years (hopefully 8), I can tolerate his putting his being a jerk, especially if his target is a gargoyle like Princess Lie-awatha.

How dare they say MAGA if this is their vision of what America should look like and whats acceptable behavior of our POTUS .. sorry I wont accept it

Huh? Who is saying that we should all behave the way Trump does?

You don't have to accept it, because no one is selling it.

I don't know...think about it....what better time to attack a fake indian than when you are surrounded by real indians...the code talkers seemed to really enjoy Trump

I hear you, I definitely do. But when holding a ceremony to pay tribute to people who made incredible sacrifices (especially when, in their case, it's not like America had treated them all that great), it might have been more, I don't know...respectful? somber? To keep it just about the heroes they were there to honor.

Believe me, I'm not one to come to her defense...she deserves a whole lot worse than Trump's insults.

What's to say that hasn't already been said before, he just continues to be an embarrassment, who hasn't he disrespected at this point? I'm surprised he didn't follow that inappropriate comment up by stating I think you redskins should kick her off the reservation. He literally has no control of his twisted mind and sick inappropriate sense of humor; if he even considers it humor.

"who hasn't he disrespected at this point? "

How's your IRA doing?

"He literally has no control of his twisted mind and sick inappropriate sense of humor"

No, he doesn't.

It's embarrassing, I don't know that it's dangerous. For 8 years, Obama tried making bad people like us by being nicer to them. Did that work? Not really. Obama had some foreign policy success, but it wasn't based on his being friendlier than Bush was.

:jester:

you get the comedic benefit...and then the outrage form the left is icing on the cake

That is true, that's exactly what it is. Since election night, there has been immeasurable insanity from the left. To say "he is living rent free in their heads", is the understatement of the century. They literally cannot deal with him. Well, they attacked McCain (and it worked because he wouldn't fight back), they attacked Romney (and it worked because he wouldn't fight back), so once again, how can the liberals be shocked that now they are facing someone who has no issue with putting on his brass knuckles and rolling in the mud with them. And he's better at it than they are. He doesn't let them get under his skin, and everything he does, gets under their skin. He literally cannot lose.

The statement was inappropriate for that occasion. He should have used it at another press opportunity.

Warren has been constantly criticizing Trump - she has a bad case of TDS. Payback is a bitch and unlike most presidents Trump will not waste an opportunity to call her or others out on there lies. All in all it was a real bad day for Warren - she is also about to potentially loose her baby the CFPB.

I swear to god I am convinced that all of Trumps antics are scripted. It’s too predictable. Why would this be scripted? To polarize the American people and distract them from the real problems that this country faces.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


feasible....

It is pretty funny listening to him. Makes you wonder what type of people voted for him (evangelicals LOL). I mentioned to my wife last night that I wonder what type of woman Melania was to even sit w/him for 10 min. on the first date w/o getting up and walking away.

After 8 years of your snarky whining this is nothing.

"Makes you wonder what type of people voted for him (evangelicals LOL)."

I'm a devout Catholic, and voting for him was unpleasant, but very easy. If you vote based on Christian beliefs (a big driver of my voting logic), at the national level, it will likely be a long time before a democrat is more attractive to a true Christian, than a Republican. Every cycle, the democratic party gets further and further away from Christian values. Fortunately for democrats, there are fewer and fewer Christians.

I would have preferred a Republican of character. I think the relationship between the liberals and the media, makes it very difficult for a decent, gentle Republican, to stand a chance. Look at what they did to Bush (called him a liar to start his war, called him a racist despite what he has done for Africa), McCain (a racist whose adopted black daughter, liberals said came from an extramarital affair), and Romney (painted as a heartless plutocrat, who was called a sexist because he kept a notebook of resumes of talented women, that makes all kinds of sense). So we went with a guy, maybe the only guy, who could take all that left wing bile, suck it up, and spit it right back in their face, as effortlessly as breathing, without breaking a sweat. It's completely natural for him.

Your side created this. You guaranteed that we would nominate someone like this. Kind of ironic, no?

and you can bet Melania is a gold digger. How many poor, jerky, 80 year-olds do you think she dated?

"who hasn't he disrespected at this point? "

How's your IRA doing?

"He literally has no control of his twisted mind and sick inappropriate sense of humor"

No, he doesn't.

It's embarrassing, I don't know that it's dangerous. For 8 years, Obama tried making bad people like us by being nicer to them. Did that work? Not really. Obama had some foreign policy success, but it wasn't based on his being friendlier than Bush was.

The stock market is the silver lining for sure, I only wish I wasn’t as conservative as I am, but at almost 65, I don’t dare raise my risk level. Still watching the BS is painful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The stock market is the silver lining for sure, I only wish I wasn’t as conservative as I am, but at almost 65, I don’t dare raise my risk level. Still watching the BS is painful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are very wise not to risk it. I'm 47 and m risker than I should be, but I got lucky.

I agree with you 100%. It would be nice (and shouldn't be too much to ask) to get the benefits of this presidency, without the downside. But for the last 15 years, the media has been brutal to conservatives, and guys that aren't willing to throw elbows back (McCain and Romney), get painted as evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, deplorables. It shouldn't take a Trump to combat that. But it did.

"it will likely be a long time before a democrat is more attractive to a true Christian, than a Republican. Every cycle, the democratic party gets further and further away from Christian values. Fortunately for democrats, there are fewer and fewer Christians.
That is the biggest bs garbage. True Christian? Ha. Democratic party gets away from Christian values and the Republicans don't? You need to re-look into the teachings of Jesus. Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc. Not only do most religious sects distort his teachings, the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways. Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

That is the biggest bs garbage. True Christian? Ha. Democratic party gets away from Christian values and the Republicans don't? You need to re-look into the teachings of Jesus. Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc. Not only do most religious sects distort his teachings, the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways. Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

:claps:

That is the biggest bs garbage. True Christian? Ha. Democratic party gets away from Christian values and the Republicans don't? You need to re-look into the teachings of Jesus. Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc. Not only do most religious sects distort his teachings, the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways. Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

"That is the biggest bs garbage"

Very easy to say. Not so easy to support with logic.

"Democratic party gets away from Christian values "

Hell, yes it does. The motto of the current democratic party is, "if it feels good, do it". You don't think that true Christians are more likely to identify with the Republican party, than the Democrat party?


"Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc"

Yes, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, emphasize caring for the poor. On that you are 100% correct. However, you seem to assume that liberals/non-Christians care more about the poor than conservatives/Christians. There is zero evidence to support that. In fact, the one definitive study on the subject was called "Who Really Cares", was published in the New York Times (not a conservative publication), and it showed that conservatives give more time and money to charity, than liberals. Here is the study...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

The Catholic Church isn't dedicated to helping the needy? Tell that to your neighbors who have received subsidized medical care at Catholic hospitals, subsidized education at Catholic schools, lodging at Catholic shelters, food at Catholic soup kitchens, etc... Last time I checked, the Catholic Church gave more money to help the poor, than any other organization except the US government.

"the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways."

What the Democrats claim to be the GOP platform, absolutely is the antithesis of Christianity. But what liberals claim the GOP believes, is very different from what the GOP actually believes.

sanctity of life
the dignity and worth of the individual
individual freedom and responsibility
charity for the poor

The true GOP platform on these issues (as opposed to what MSNBC claims the GOP believes on these issues) is much more in line with Christianity, than the liberal platform. One need only look at the issue of abortion...but there are several other issues that make this clear. After the last few mass shootings, liberals are mercilessly attacking anyone who offers prayer for the families.

The GOP is FAR from perfect on these issues, in particular, the GOP (and Christianity) can be rigid on some social issues. But if you ask whether liberalism or conservatism more closely aligns with true Christian principles? Not even close. Not remotely close. The DNC despises true Christian principles.

"Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus"

100% true. But actually behaving in a way that is consistent with those principles, does make one a Christian. Those principles are far more welcome on the political right, than on the left.

Very well said Jim.

"That is the biggest bs garbage"

Very easy to say. Not so easy to support with logic.

"Democratic party gets away from Christian values "

Hell, yes it does. The motto of the current democratic party is, "if it feels good, do it". You don't think that true Christians are more likely to identify with the Republican party, than the Democrat party?


"Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc"

Yes, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, emphasize caring for the poor. On that you are 100% correct. However, you seem to assume that liberals/non-Christians care more about the poor than conservatives/Christians. There is zero evidence to support that. In fact, the one definitive study on the subject was called "Who Really Cares", was published in the New York Times (not a conservative publication), and it showed that conservatives give more time and money to charity, than liberals. Here is the study...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

The Catholic Church isn't dedicated to helping the needy? Tell that to your neighbors who have received subsidized medical care at Catholic hospitals, subsidized education at Catholic schools, lodging at Catholic shelters, food at Catholic soup kitchens, etc... Last time I checked, the Catholic Church gave more money to help the poor, than any other organization except the US government.

"the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways."

What the Democrats claim to be the GOP platform, absolutely is the antithesis of Christianity. But what liberals claim the GOP believes, is very different from what the GOP actually believes.

sanctity of life
the dignity and worth of the individual
individual freedom and responsibility
charity for the poor

The true GOP platform on these issues (as opposed to what MSNBC claims the GOP believes on these issues) is much more in line with Christianity, than the liberal platform. One need only look at the issue of abortion...but there are several other issues that make this clear. After the last few mass shootings, liberals are mercilessly attacking anyone who offers prayer for the families.

The GOP is FAR from perfect on these issues, in particular, the GOP (and Christianity) can be rigid on some social issues. But if you ask whether liberalism or conservatism more closely aligns with true Christian principles? Not even close. Not remotely close. The DNC despises true Christian principles.

"Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus"

100% true. But actually behaving in a way that is consistent with those principles, does make one a Christian. Those principles are far more welcome on the political right, than on the left.
Only the Sith believe in absolutes Jim.

Only the Sith believe in absolutes Jim.

So you're saying that Jim (and Christians and Muslims) and absolute zero are Siths?

Very well said Jim.

Well said. Not accurate. Big business and profits over public health, the environment (public health issue). Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others. Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no.

The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well. Most people don't like abortion. The difference is whether a women makes that decision for herself or if Jim decides. Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester.

In US, the numbers come out to about 12 million fertilized eggs per year. 6 million pregnancies 4 million live births. more than a million each miscarriages and abortions of choice. 9 out of 12 million fertilized eggs are not born and only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman.

Having 1 kid, no kid, or 30 kids is a personal choice. I won't tell you or anyone else how many you should have. If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood.

Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats. Totally bogus.

Well said. Not accurate. Big business and profits over public health, the environment (public health issue). Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others. Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no.

The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well. Most people don't like abortion. The difference is whether a women makes that decision for herself or if Jim decides. Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester.

In US, the numbers come out to about 12 million fertilized eggs per year. 6 million pregnancies 4 million live births. more than a million each miscarriages and abortions of choice. 9 out of 12 million fertilized eggs are not born and only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman.

Having 1 kid, no kid, or 30 kids is a personal choice. I won't tell you or anyone else how many you should have. If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood.

Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats. Totally bogus.

I don't know if Jesus was a true Christian. But there is no evidence that he believed that government, especially secular government, should be responsible for either the physical or spiritual life of individuals. He seems to have preached that individual responsibility nonsense that the GOP spouts.

He seems to have preached that individual responsibility nonsense that the GOP spouts.
Now that is comical. Good one :humpty:

Well said. Not accurate. Big business and profits over public health, the environment (public health issue). Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others. Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no.

The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well. Most people don't like abortion. The difference is whether a women makes that decision for herself or if Jim decides. Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester.

In US, the numbers come out to about 12 million fertilized eggs per year. 6 million pregnancies 4 million live births. more than a million each miscarriages and abortions of choice. 9 out of 12 million fertilized eggs are not born and only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman.

Having 1 kid, no kid, or 30 kids is a personal choice. I won't tell you or anyone else how many you should have. If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood.

Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats. Totally bogus.

"Big business "

What does this mean, exactly? There is a liberal myth that republicans are happy to let businesses maximize profits even if it means slaughtering their employees and selling their organs on the black market. It's not true. Republicans are less hostile to business than democrats, that's typically true. I've never heard a republican call for a repeal of labor laws to let business run amuck. So I have no idea what your point is when you say "big business". I have news for you. Big business isn't bad. I have worked for big business my whole life, they employ thousands of Americans, generate wealth for shareholders, and give a ton of money to local charities.

"Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others"

Certain rights are guaranteed in the constitution, even if liberals are offended by them. Hurt feelings do not trump the Constitution. Do you agree?

"Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no"

You are making these crazy assumptions, for example, that Republicans don't like clean water and air. I spend a lot more time outdoors than most people. I think we have a responsibility to safeguard these beautiful ecosystems that give us so much. We need honest research about such things, and common sense reaction to them. I don't know any part of the GOP platform that endorses pollution. But we aren't a bunch of fanatical tree huggers, either. The right answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

"The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well"

The hell it is. Most conservatives are anti-abortion, most liberals are pro-abortion.

"Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester. "

Nonsensical comparison. The latter events, while sometimes tragic, are natural. Abortion isn't. Apples and oranges. I happen to believe all life is precious, which is why I oppose both abortion and the death penalty, for the same exact reason.

"only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman. "

What the heck, what's a million babies slaughtered in the womb each year, why cry over spilled milk. No reason to get so worked up.

Democrats are in favor of snuffing out a million lives a year. And you are trying to claim that this platform, more closely embraces Christianity? That's taking some liberties, boy.

"If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood."

Anoother demonstrable false, bullsh*t lie. The GOP plans to de-fund Planned Parenthood, called for every cent that was formerly going to PP, to go to other women's health centers that don't do abortions.

See, this is what your side does. If the GOP wants to fund actual health care but not elective abortions, you know you cannot win that argument. So you lie, and claim that we oppose women's health. There is zero truth to that. But your side frames it this way, so that your position doesn't seem as evil as it actually is.

Try to follow along. We favor the funding of women's health. That does NOT include elective abortions. Am I going too fast for you?

All you did, was recite MSNBC bumper stickers. Little truth or logic. But that's liberalism.

Well said. Not accurate. Big business and profits over public health, the environment (public health issue). Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others. Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no.

The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well. Most people don't like abortion. The difference is whether a women makes that decision for herself or if Jim decides. Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester.

In US, the numbers come out to about 12 million fertilized eggs per year. 6 million pregnancies 4 million live births. more than a million each miscarriages and abortions of choice. 9 out of 12 million fertilized eggs are not born and only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman.

Having 1 kid, no kid, or 30 kids is a personal choice. I won't tell you or anyone else how many you should have. If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood.

Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats. Totally bogus.

You said the following two things.

(1) only about 1 million of those (unborn deaths) is due to the choice of the woman.

And then,

(2) Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats

Your side advocates for the right to slaughter a million unborn babies every single year. My side opposes that. And you don't concede, that means my side values life more than your side.

I also posted a study which says that conservatives are also more charitable (not by much at all) than liberals.

That's quite a bit of evidence that my side has more empathy for the voiceless and the vulnerable. Which is why I like my side.

You said the following two things.

(1) only about 1 million of those (unborn deaths) is due to the choice of the woman.

And then,

(2) Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats

Your side advocates for the right to slaughter a million unborn babies every single year. My side opposes that. And you don't concede, that means my side values life more than your side.

I also posted a study which says that conservatives are also more charitable (not by much at all) than liberals.

That's quite a bit of evidence that my side has more empathy for the voiceless and the vulnerable. Which is why I like my side.

Again a simpleton response. There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born. A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies. I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. Looking at the posts and responses of people in this forum only reinforces that I should trust women and their doctors, not the crowd who voted in Captain Traffic Cone.

The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. Muslims would come out as one of the most charitable sub-groups in a such type of analysis.

Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable.

Love the fetus, care less about the baby. Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us. At least we don't have to hear about "compassionate conservativism" any longer.

The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though.

Again a simpleton response. There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born. A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies. I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. Looking at the posts and responses of people in this forum only reinforces that I should trust women and their doctors, not the crowd who voted in Captain Traffic Cone.

The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. Muslims would come out as one of the most charitable sub-groups in a such type of analysis.

Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable.

"Again a simpleton response"

I am a very simple guy.

"There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born"

You are talking about natural miscarriages and abortion, as if they are the same thing. Natural miscarriages do not happen because of a legislative mandate. Abortions do. We can't legislate who has miscarriages. Jeez.

"A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies."

I notice that despite your opinion that there are a variety of such issues, you didn't specify any. I'm not sure much helps the unborn more, than being protected from slaughter. For example, availability of prenatal vitamins, doesn't do an aborted fetus a lot of good that I can see.

"I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. "

See, there is the dishonest framing of the issue again. My opposition to abortion, doesn't mean I think women are stupid. My wife is ten times smarter than me in every imaginable way. And I don't think she has the moral right to elect an abortion. But I know she's smarter than me.

Liberals FRAME this as about how conservatives view women - again, they like to gframe things in a dishonest way. It's not. If it was, why are so many women opposed to abortion? The only issue, is the rights (or lack thereof) of the fetus.

Pro-life folks are pro-life, because they have empathy for the fetus. But I have never, not once, ever - heard a liberal say "I respect that pro-life people have empathy for the fetus, but I think it's misplaced empathy". Liberals never say that, because as usual, the truth makes there side look evil. So they say we are opposed to women's health. It's obviously dishonest, but it sounds better to liberals, than admitting the ugly truth about what the two sides actually believe.

Liberals do this (demonize the opposition) all the time. If you think white cops are usually heroes, you hate blacks. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women. If you want secure borders, you hate Hispanics. If you think the bill of rights applies to bakers who are opposed to gay weddings, you hate gays. If you are worried about jihadists, you hate Muslims. If you think Social Security needs to be fixed, you hate old people. If you think there are limits to how much we can spend, you hate poor people. It never ends. Never.

"The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. "

I thought you said Christians didn't care about the poor? So why do they tithe? You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

"Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable"

Pretend you are an unborn baby with some health issues. God asks you whether you'd prefer to be placed in the womb of the head of the RNC or the head of the DNC. You going to claim that you wouldn't have a very strong preference?

I provided factual evidence that Republicans have more empathy (the issue of abortion, and charitable giving) You have provided zero evidence that I am wrong. You have slogans like "big business", and "profits before people". Bumper sticker slogans that dishonestly demonize conservatives. That's 90% of what liberalism is - dishonestly distorting what it is, that conservatives actually believe.

Love the fetus, care less about the baby. Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us. At least we don't have to hear about "compassionate conservativism" any longer.

The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though.

"Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

And your evidence of this, is what, exactly?

"Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor '

Not sure how doubling the standard deduction hurts the poor, most of whom utilize the standard deduction. It may help the rich more...but that's not the same thing as hurting the poor.

"The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though"

Most of the conservatives here have criticized Trump for his many shortcomings. I'm not to blame for his personal behavior. I am to blame for the public policy he advocates.

Character wasn't on the ballot in 2016. It was a choice of two morally bankrupt reptiles. I won't begin to claim Trump is more ethical than Hilary. I am quite comfortable debating that conservatism (which he advocates for, at least at the moment) is more ethical than liberalism (which she advocates for). I'm holding all the cards in that debate.

Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us.

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or +0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or +2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

There is a huge difference between a bill that hurts the poor, and a bill that helps the poor, but helps the rich more.

If the feds passed a law that said everyone gets a 10% raise tomorrow, that helps the rich more than it helps the poor. That doesn't mean it hurts the poor.

"Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

And your evidence of this, is what, exactly?The Repub. budget and tax bill which both hurt the poor (as I stated below)

"Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor '

Not sure how doubling the standard deduction hurts the poor, most of whom utilize the standard deduction. It may help the rich more...but that's not the same thing as hurting the poor.Every analysis that I have seen says the tax bills hurt the lower income people (some said below 35K, others up to 125K in yearly income) and benefit the rich. If the end result is that someone making less money pays more in taxes and someone making more money pays less in taxes that shows where the Repub. priorities are.

"The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though"

Most of the conservatives here have criticized Trump for his many shortcomings. I'm not to blame for his personal behavior. "Your team/side" voted for him when they had many other choices - woman, more conserv, less conserv, minorities

.

Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich.

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

So the divisiveness isn't because liberals believe that conservatives hate everybody. And the divisiveness has nothing to do with the way liberals play the race card. Rather, the divisiveness comes from people who admit that today, there are two distinct political camps, and that most of us fall into one or the other.

Gotcha.

There is a huge difference between a bill that hurts the poor, and a bill that helps the poor, but helps the rich more.

If the feds passed a law that said everyone gets a 10% raise tomorrow, that helps the rich more than it helps the poor. That doesn't mean it hurts the poor.

Agreed on both statements but the independent analysis say that on average the poor will pay more in taxes than they pay now while the rich will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

So the divisiveness isn't because liberals believe that conservatives hate everybody.


Who here demonstrates the hate you do? The tenor of this forum changed when you started posting here. Look at the hate you spew in almost all your posts.

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable.

Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich.

"The Repub. budget and tax bill which both hurt the poor (as I stated below)"

You can state that the earth is flat. Doesn't make it so.

"Every analysis that I have seen says the tax bills hurt the lower income people (some said below 35K, others up to 125K in yearly income) and benefit the rich. "

And SOME of the ones that I have seen, claim it will help the poor and the middle class, and also help the rich.

"If the end result is that someone making less money pays more in taxes and someone making more money pays less in taxes that shows where the Repub. priorities are. "

If that's what happens, I agree with you. I don't know, that's what is going to happen. And neither do you.

Why can't you tell me, how doubling the standard deduction, fails to help the people who utilize that deduction, none of whom are wealthy?

""Your team/side" voted for him when they had many other choices - woman, more conserv, less conserv, minorities"

True. Your team also voted for an ethically bankrupt lizard.

"Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich"

Well with such convincing supporting data, that's a compelling argument.

"Bottom line, 2+2=5".

See what I di dthere.

Sorry Paul, I spent half my life living near New Haven, and the other half working near Hartford. Liberal cities in a liberal state. There is zero evidence that liberalism has helped these people. I have seen firsthand what a generation of pure liberalism has done.

After 40 years of voting for Democrats, the fatherlessness rate among blacks has more than doubled.

Fat lot of good liberalism has done for poor people.

I'm not saying conservatism eliminates poverty either.

Who here demonstrates the hate you do? The tenor of this forum changed when you started posting here. Look at the hate you spew in almost all your posts.

Gee, that's a tough one.

Oh wait, it's easy. You said I don't care about babies, and you and Zimmy are saying I support policies that hurt poor people.

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

It's OK when liberals do it. It's only problematic when I do it.

Who here demonstrates the hate you do? The tenor of this forum changed when you started posting here. Look at the hate you spew in almost all your posts.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that when Jim arrived on the scene he hit it hard, filter removed, and guns a-blazin.....

But he has definitely dialed it way back the past couple of years. I don't see anything remotely hateful in this thread.

You just don't really like the guy's politics is all

Agreed on both statements but the independent analysis say that on average the poor will pay more in taxes than they pay now while the rich will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

not sure what your definition of "poor" is but from what I understand the "poor" in this country are, in general, not paying any income tax and in many cases getting money through the earned income tax credit...

from Marketwatch..I think this was a 2015 analysis

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

I am not an accountant. So I could absolutely be wrong here...

But when I heard about the doubling of the standard deduction, I was very glad to see that in there. I figured that cannot fail to put more money in the pockets of people who are, I presume, mostly lower middle class. Isn't that who uses the standard deduction?

That piece alone, must necessarily reduce taxes for these people. Is there another feature of the bill, that increases their taxes by more than the deduction lowers them?

This is an honest, sincere question, not sarcasm or hyperbole.

I was just reading this about Pocahontas...too funny

touted after her hire at Harvard Law School as, yes, the school’s “first woman of color"


"My favorite Elizabeth Warren story involves a cookbook. Warren, who was at that time posing as a trailblazing Cherokee, actually contributed recipes to a recipe book with the name, I kid you not, “Pow Wow Chow.” But here’s the best part of the story. She plagiarized some of the recipes. Yes indeed, her version of “pow wow chow” came directly from a famous French chef. My second-favorite Warren story involves breastfeeding. She once claimed to be the first “nursing mother” to take the New Jersey bar exam, making her, I suppose, the Jackie Robinson of lactating lawyers. The problem? There’s no evidence this is true. Women have been taking the New Jersey bar since 1895, and the New Jersey Judiciary was “not aware” whether they tracked the nursing habits of test-takers. Warren is a bit of an academic grifter. She’s willing to fake her way to the top. When she came to Harvard Law School, she was — believe it or not — considered by some to be a “minority hire.” She listed herself as a minority on a legal directory reviewed by deans and hiring committees. The University of Pennsylvania “listed her as a minority faculty member,” and she was touted after her hire at Harvard Law School as, yes, the school’s “first woman of color.”

I am not an accountant. So I could absolutely be wrong here...

But when I heard about the doubling of the standard deduction, I was very glad to see that in there. I figured that cannot fail to put more money in the pockets of people who are, I presume, mostly lower middle class. Isn't that who uses the standard deduction?

That piece alone, must necessarily reduce taxes for these people. Is there another feature of the bill, that increases their taxes by more than the deduction lowers them?

This is an honest, sincere question, not sarcasm or hyperbole.
I think the issue is they while they may double the standard deduction they also remove other exemptions and tinker with the rates so it's neutral or in some cases a net loss. The CBO report just hammered the Senate plan as a big hit on the middle class and will add substantially to our deficit spending.

I think the issue is they while they may double the standard deduction they also remove other exemptions and tinker with the rates so it's neutral or in some cases a net loss. The CBO report just hammered the Senate plan as a big hit on the middle class and will add substantially to our deficit spending.

Someone has to cover the tax cuts for private jets, golf courses and hotels. Sheeeesh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that when Jim arrived on the scene he hit it hard, filter removed, and guns a-blazin.....

But he has definitely dialed it way back the past couple of years. I don't see anything remotely hateful in this thread.

You just don't really like the guy's politics is all

I don't think he's changed a bit.

Neither have you Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think he's changed a bit.
I give him credit where due, he doesn't immediately take a hard right turn to steer every topic to abortion like he did at first. So he's got that going for him... 😁😁😁😁😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may want to talk to this guy too then....
That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the selective quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may want to talk to this guy too then....
That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the out of context quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the selective quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the out of context quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that was in response to PaulS referring to the fact that considering members of a party a "Team" or "Side" is what's contributing to why our "Political Climate is so Decisive" (pretty sure he meant divisive)"

Good work on your lack of reading comprehension skills though

And that was in response to PaulS referring to the fact that considering members of a party a "Team" or "Side" is what's contributing to why our "Political Climate is so Decisive" (pretty sure he meant divisive)"



What I mean and what Samsung Android here's are two different things LOL.

I can live with gyms see it just heard me say gyms instead of jim politics as I used to vote majority Republican. What I respond to is the constant insults. For someone so smart I think it brings him down
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that was in response to PaulS referring to the fact that considering members of a party a "Team" or "Side" is what's contributing to why our "Political Climate is so Decisive" (pretty sure he meant divisive)"

Good work on your lack of reading comprehension skills though

Reading comprehension? You told Paul he should "talk to this guy" in reference to me using the word "side". I was quoting "side" from Jim. It isn't a reading comprehension problem on my part. You missed the context of my post. Side was Jim's word. Next time I will put it in quotes and add a footnote for you.

What I mean and what Samsung Android here's are two different things LOL.

I can live with gyms see it just heard me say gyms instead of jim politics as I used to vote majority Republican. What I respond to is the constant insults. For someone so smart I think it brings him down
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said I care less about babies. I guess it's OK when you lob insults, no one else is supposed to stoop to that. Do I have that right?

I wonder what type of woman Melania was to even sit w/him for 10 min. on the first date w/o getting up and walking away.

.

Same exact kind of woman Hilary is for getting through her first dinner date with Bill when he left the table to have a quickie with the coat-check girl.

You said I care less about babies. I guess it's OK when you lob insults, no one else is supposed to stoop to that. Do I have that right?

Please post where I said that about you.

I only Respond to your anger with Posts in kind. Love the fetus care less about the baby seems to be the Republican way. Cut WIC, chip Etc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Same exact kind of woman Hilary is for getting through her first dinner date with Bill when he left the table to have a quickie with the coat-check girl.

Did he actually do that? Cuz if he did that's horrible. If not it's scummy of you even accuse someone of doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did he actually do that? Cuz if he did that's horrible. If not it's scummy of you even accuse someone of doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not that I know of. But neither do you know what happened during the first 10 minutes of Melania's first conversation.

Melania and Hilary, safe to say, both married for convenience, not love. You go ahead and deny that if it suits you.

Again, it's OK for you to speculate on what happened on the Trump's first date, but "scummy" for me to do the same exact thing with the Clintons.

You're not having a good couple of days here.

Please post where I said that about you.

I only Respond to your anger with Posts in kind. Love the fetus care less about the baby seems to be the Republican way. Cut WIC, chip Etc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


"Please post where I said that about you"

Your post #47..."Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

"I only Respond to your anger with Posts in kind"

So when I respond to anger with my own anger, it means I have a character flaw. When you respond to anger with you own anger, hooray for you!!!

"Please post where I said that about you"

Your post #47..."Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

"I only Respond to your anger with Posts in kind"

So when I respond to anger with my own anger, it means I have a character flaw. When you respond to anger with you own anger, hooray for you!!!

So I didn't say you care less about babies. You lied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not that I know of. But neither do you know what happened during the first 10 minutes of Melania's first conversation.

Melania and Hilary, safe to say, both married for convenience, not love. You go ahead and deny that if it suits you.

Again, it's OK for you to speculate on what happened on the Trump's first date, but "scummy" for me to do the same exact thing with the Clintons.

You're not having a good couple of days here.
Yes I said I wonder what happened in the first 10 minutes of their date. You said Bill Clinton did something horrible and now you're admitting that you lied and it didn't happen after being called out on it. - too funny.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So I didn't say you care less about babies. You lied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said Republicans, which includes me, could care less about babies.

You feeling OK? You're acting like you're auditioning for a prime time spot at MSNBC.

Yes I said I wonder what happened in the first 10 minutes of their date. You said Bill Clinton did something horrible and now you're admitting that you lied and it didn't happen after being called out on it. - too funny.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Yes I said I wonder what happened in the first 10 minutes of their date"

Sorry, that's not even close to what you said. You wondered what kind of woman Melania is, for not getting up and leaving within those first 10 minutes, which necessarily means you are assuming he was a jerk. Not a bad assumption, by the way. Nor is it a bad assumption for me to think Bill was also less than a gentleman.

Quit while you're behind, man.

You said Republicans, which includes me, could care less about babies.

You feeling OK? You're acting like you're auditioning for a prime time spot at MSNBC.

I guess you could look at it that way but if I meant you obviously I would have said you since I have no problem calling you out. But I was clearly referencing the Republican budgets which constantly hurt the poor and their babies. Cutting WIC and not renewing chip hurts the poor and their vulnerable babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you could look at it that way but if I meant you obviously I would have said you since I have no problem calling you out. But I was clearly referencing the Republican budgets which constantly hurt the poor and their babies. Cutting WIC and not renewing chip hurts the poor and their vulnerable babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just out of curiosity, what is your evidence that liberal budgets have done more to help the poor and their babies? Because when I look at some of the most liberal places in the nation, I'm not seeing an elimination of infant poverty. Pretty far from it.

The late great liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when he was with the Dept Of Labor, predicted that liberal welfare would destroy the black nuclear family, and that would be a Holocaust for blacks. He was right. When you pay young black girls to have babies, and you pay them more to not marry the father of that baby, nothing good happens to those babies. Shocker.

Just out of curiosity, what is your evidence that liberal budgets have done more to help the poor and their babies? Because when I look at some of the most liberal places in the nation, I'm not seeing an elimination of infant poverty. Pretty far from it.No one has claimed you can "eliminate" poverty.

The late great liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when he was with the Dept Of Labor, predicted that liberal welfare would destroy the black nuclear family, and that would be a Holocaust for blacks. He was right. When you pay young black girls to have babies, and you pay them more to not marry the father of that baby, nothing good happens to those babies. Shocker.

A combo of comments about the Repub budget and tax reform – some C&P and some links:
Republicans’ efforts to cut spending have focused mostly on programs for the poor, like Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income or food stamps. Trump’s budget proposal includes $2.1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Affordable Care Act subsidies, food stamps, Social Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, and cash welfare (TANF). They also are cutting SNAP (Sup. Nutrition Assist. Program), Meals on wheels,

Others:

Eliminates funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which provides after-school programs to roughly 2 million students in high-need communities. There is research showing that after-school programs improve children's academic performance, as well as their emotional and physical well-being.

Cuts to HUD to support housing: About half of HUD's funding cut would come from eliminating the Community Development Block Grant Program. CDBG was set up to help local governments provide "decent housing," a suitable living environment and economic opportunities primarily for low- and moderate-income people.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP is targeted for elimination in Trump's budget.
Trump wants to eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corporation. LSC provides grants to nonprofits nationwide that in turn provide civil legal aid to those who otherwise can't afford it. The beneficiaries of LSC funding include homeless veterans, low-income workers and victims of domestic abuse.

Remove the $250 deduction for teachers who pay for school supplies. (prob. not an issue in the richer school districts) while maintaining favorable tax treatment for golf courses and private jets. I believe student loan interest will no longer be deductible. Furthermore, there was a story of a janitor at BC who put his 5 kids thru school there and now the tax bill would make the free tuition to his kids and (grad students) taxable.

Lower Social Security payments by changing the way increases are calculated. They are now indexed to inflation through the CPI, but that will change under a new way of figuring inflation.

The Senate Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation’s poorest would be worse off, according to a report released Sunday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans are aiming to have the full Senate vote on the tax plan as early as this week, but the new CBO analysis showing large, harmful effects on the poor may complicate those plans.
by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off
On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. (In the CBO table below, negative signs mean people in those income brackets pay less in taxes).

The main reason the poor get hit so hard in the Senate GOP bill is because the poor would receive less government aid for health care. Many of the people who are likely to drop health insurance have low or moderate incomes. If they drop health insurance, they will no longer receive some tax credits and subsidies from the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the other official nonpartisan group that analyzes tax bills, put out a similar report showing how lower-income families are hurt by the loss of the health-care tax credits. But the CBO goes a step further than the JCT. The CBO also calculates what would happen to Medicaid, Medicare and the Basic Health Program if the Senate GOP plan became law. The CBO is showing even worse impacts on poor families than the JCT did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.f2b81f8fe8c0

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/11/29/how-the-gop-tax-plan-scrooges-middle-class-retired-and-poor/#683a99406c1e

[QUOTE=PaulS;1132648]

No one has claimed you can "eliminate" poverty.


http://theweek.com/articles/534655/want-end-poverty-americaits-pretty-simple

this guy claims it would be pretty simple
and I don't know how many organizations exist to "end poverty"...but it a lot

I guess you could look at it that way but if I meant you obviously I would have said you since I have no problem calling you out. But I was clearly referencing the Republican budgets which constantly hurt the poor and their babies. Cutting WIC and not renewing chip hurts the poor and their vulnerable babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So when President Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, was he widely regarded by liberals as not wanting to help poor people? Or, again, is it only immoral when conservatives do it?

So when President Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, was he widely regarded by liberals as not wanting to help poor people? Or, again, is it only immoral when conservatives do it?

You do know that when Clinton "kicked" people off welfare he put in other programs to help them vs the items that I mentioned above which will be replaced by what?

you can never have enough "programs"

So when President Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, was he widely regarded by liberals as not wanting to help poor people? Or, again, is it only immoral when conservatives do it?

you should read the article I linked...that guy clearly has it figured out....you dump a ton of money in the community...give everyone a guaranteed income "a regular check from the government with no strings attached".... give everyone free or subsidized housing and other amenities including a car, a "a jobs guarantee: using federal finance"...set up accounts for them and put money in there for them and give them bonuses if they use it properly...for new arrivals...a "stocked" investment account upon birth...and viola!...no more poverty....I like it...never been tried before :doh:

You do know that when Clinton "kicked" people off welfare he put in other programs to help them vs the items that I mentioned above which will be replaced by what?

Yes, and the program that he sent those people to, was called "your free ride is over, now go get a job in the private sector, which is booming thanks to the fact that I slashed taxes".

Paul, his welfare reform, helped REDUCE spending, and generate a surplus. If he merely moved those people from one public program to another, it wouldn't have saved us money.

Sorry to interrupt a good liberal rant with facts.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Paul is right, and millions of people simply moved from one federal entitlement program to another, how did it decrease spending and generate a surplus?

His welfare reform wasn't called "moving people from one federal program to another". It was, literally, called "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act".

The point was to recognize that people on welfare too long, lose the initiative to work.

And it worked. Clinton and Gingrich did an amazing job.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said Clinton's welfare reform just switched people from one program to another. That's not remotely true. You made it up. His program said that no one could receive welfare for more than 2 consecutive years, and no more than 5 years of benefits in a lifetime, and required that recipients be looking for work. His program moved many people from welfare to the workforce. Most people consider that a good thing.

have they announced the ceremony date yet to give Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Russell Simmons, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, John Conyers, Charlie Rose...it's hard to keep up,,, and anyone else... their lifetime achievement awards?

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, indeed. I said that the point of the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform was to get people off federal assistance, you and Paul disagree, and I am the one in denial.

I’m a republican. Yet I can admit that Bill Clinton did some things that were extremely beneficial to the country. You say that’s devoid of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is good....


Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.

https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/