Thats simply not true. Small businessmen, who historically have been the backbone of the Jaycees, Kiwannis, and other such fraternal organizations were some of the original backers, supporters of the Special Olympics. And I think we know well what political party most small businessmen are associated with.

I see I've struck a chord here, but I think you're taking my comment personally instead of looking at the irony I was intending to point out. If you have data that suggests Republican politicians have been championing the needs of the mentally disabled, I'd like to see it.

As for my head, it's planted firmly on my neck where it's always been.

-spence

Ok, fine...I give up. I'm obviously guily of not attaching enough conditions to my generalization to make everyone happy.

Tough crowd this afternoon :lasso:

-spence

:humpty:

Spence, your irony is misplaced. As for data, I'll give you some. Although when I call you out on things, you usually neither provide data nor respond. Check out The Special Olympics Sport Empowerment Act of 2004 and see who the sponsors of the bill were. Also check out John McCain's track record of working with people with disabilities.

Haven't been in here much lately, but Sarah Palin ran as an advocate for families with special needs.

yes, but the open minded left labeled her as a white trash moron so she doesnt count.

I'll agree with that !

Ok, that was pretty good :soon:

-spence

I'd note that McCain (a good man, until he won the primary), by most measures, isn't even considered a member of the right wing.

If you're going to argue that the political elite ideologues and punditry who define the "Right" and drive the party platform are the vanguard of the mentally disabled then perhaps I've been watching a different channel.

Ok, perhaps my use of irony was overly sardonic for your tastes, which is fine, but to insult my wife's bona fides or assume (god forbid) that my post slipped through QA, all because of a little sarcasm, is a bit lame.

-spence

Ya, hip, funny and cool should be added to the age, citizenship and residency
qualifications to run for The Office of The President of The United States of America.

Thanks for clearing things up, Spence. I forgot that you like to change up your argument mid-discussion if the facts don't support it to fit the point you're trying to prove.

When you said Republican, I gave you an example of a Republican (McCain). I should have known that you only meant "right wing" Republicans. Please forgive me for not being able to read your mind.

Your wifes bona fides were never questioned by me. Sorry if you misinterpreted when I actually questioned you (and was pretty clear that it was you I was questioning). I'm sure your wife is very qualified just as any other employee who works in that field to have an opinion about politics.

By the way, did you read the SOSEA?

No, not at all.

My initial comment was calling out the "Right" as in the idiological leadership of the Right Wing, then asserted that there was a generalized policy difference that stemmed from this.

In an act of good faith I attempted to qualify my perhaps open ended sarcastic comment, but you seem to take this as an act of inconsistency.

If I have in any way led you to believe that I don't actually find irony in the intial post, then I'm deeply sorry for attempting to be reasonable. Perhaps I should have just told you to jam it and went offline?

Ultimately though, I find an argument about irony to be very ironic, don't you :)

If I was wrong about anything, it was assuming all the outrage would come from the Right, when in fact the outrage came from all sides.

Oh, and as for SOSEA, please enlighten us.

-spence

Good morning, Spence. If you went offline yesterday, my day would have been empty. And I love arguments about irony. I find them, well, ironic.

The reason I questioned you was because you originally made a blanket statement which was untrue. Then, you amended it and asked me to site examples without providing any of your own to support your argument.

While you can certainly find instances of cutbacks in funding by the Republicans, you might be suprised to find that the Democrats are guilty of the same things. They just try to blame it on the Republicans. Even you have to admit that there is a mindset among the public that all cuts to social services come from Republicans. It's a brilliant plan by the Democrats to keep themselves in office.

As for SOSEA, look up the bill. I'm pretty sure you're internet savy enough to do a google search on it. I shouldn't have to be the only one to actually provide facts to back up my statements.:wave:

That's shows just how easily it it to fall into this line of disabled jokes. We should all lighted up a little and tend to our raw nerves. It was just a joke, a tad offensive, but self depreciating. He apologized. Let's get back to the real issues, like the total disaster the world economy is in right now.

Right on. The world needs to lighten up a bit.

I'm glad to see you have some level of dependence.

Quite simply, too lazy and too busy on a Friday during work to make the effort.

There is perhaps some of this, but there's a idiological undercurrent to at play as well. Conservatives tend to believe that the Federal Government has no Constitutional justification to fund social programs, which end up funding a lot of programs for the mentally disabled. While State Governments have more freedom here, politically they are often constrained to sticking to the same platform, perhaps more now than ever. This certianly was true under Reagan, and even recently our own Gov. Carcieri attempted to slash state budgets for the developmentally disabled without any thought into the net business value of his actions. Considering he's a business man this surprised me quite a bit. That being said, I'm glad he considered it as an option as if you're going to reform, there can't be any sacred cows. He did eventually back down when the stupidity of his plan became appearant. I've read plenty of stories over the years, but again...to lazy to write a book about it.

RI actually has some very good programs for the developmentally disabled, and I don't credit a longstanding conservative state government for the value that it does deliver...granted, at a high cost. Religious and other community efforts add tremendous value and improve quality of life, but with some people needing 100K+ per year in state and federal aid, the till from the taxpayer ends up footing a lot of the bill.

While I'm sure there's examples of good and bad being done on both sides...at the top of either ends political elite though, I think there's a consistent message that's quite different, hence the irony.

Had I found it via Google I would have educated myself, found the weakness in your argument and posted as an expert in the subject asserting your error. Perhaps you don't have the acronym correct?

-spence

Here you go, Spence. Enjoy.

http://soi-prod5.specialolympics.org...egislation.htm

You already mentioned that.

Hey, I think the Special Olympics are great, and the recent quote from a disabled bowler stating "I can beat the President!" is even better :hihi:

But this was a bi-partisan bill that nobody in their right mind would have opposed even if they were a heartless bastard.

-spence

she is a white trash moron:huh:

along with most of the party:bl::bl:

Keep in mind that it was co-sponsored by a Republican. I heard a disabled person person say that they were better than the president with finances earlier today.
Don't worry though. I put them in their place for you.

If you read your own link then you'd know it was two Republicans who co-sponsored the bill.

As for being better than the President with finance, I don't doubt that there are a hundred autistic kids out there who have already solved the present economic crisis in an alternate Earth they've created and planned to the minute detail.

If these kids weren't on the short bus they could probably be charting a better course for our future :agree:

-spence

Just to make you aware, it was originally co-sponsored by Blunt and Hoyer and then went to the Senate and was introduced as companion legislation by Santorum and Reid.

The link doesn't mention that. I wouldn't want you to think I don't read links I post here, Spence.

Reading spence's post, he stated that funding for the disabled has tended to fall under a Republican government and rise with a Democratic one.

How does your continual argument that a handful of Republicans championed a bill for the Special Olympic make his argument invalid?

By your methods, I could say that Republicans are heartless bastards because Texas is a Republican state and executed a mental disabled person.

It just doesn't add up. A rather poor argument created on the basis of the actions of the few representing those of the rest.

Lets face it. For any side to claim they corner the market on helping "special needs" has to be the most pathetic thing I have seen on this forum yet. There has been plenty done by both sides and there is more to do.

I would bet the private sector does more then the government day in and day out.

It's a headline grapping issue, 50 years ago they would have put all of those 'special needs' in a state hospital and forgotten about them. Now the govt can spend less because their fate is in the private sector.

Funny, up until very recently people were debating that you were the most pathetic thing seen on this forum yet :hihi:

Seriously, how much are you willing to place?

-spence

I only got involved in this thread cause I thought it was about you. :love: