Obamacare is passed.....let the outrage

[LBJefferies]

Pro Lifers are nutcases. And Usually identified by all the pro life, jesus loves you, save the babies,etc, bumper stickers on their fucking cars.

You're a fucking idiot. Some pro-lifers may be nutcases but the pro-life viewpoint is not nutty. It makes a lot of sense actually. I just hate the pro-lifers who are so passionately against abortion but condone capital punishment and war.

[ALYKZANDYR]

Pro Lifers are nutcases. And Usually identified by all the pro life, jesus loves you, save the babies,etc bumper stickers on their fucking cars.

[ck_taft325is]

So again, using a Pro-life, which is not in ANY particular way simply "Christian" stand point, is putting the Church in Government power? How the hell do you even justify that one?

Markseven: THANK YOU! I was just looking for those statistics. I heard those a few months ago and it makes Left wingers really look like a bunch of idealistic mouth pieces that preach what they don't have any intention of backing up with action.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I gave up on him a while ago. I just blow right by any of his posts.

[z31maniac]

It's my position that no one in the U.S. should starve, yes. I'm not a proponent of giving handouts, but I am in favor of helping those (especially children) who do not have the basic means to survive. I'm not so generous that I donate sums of money to charity--but I do tend to vote for the candidates that are more likely to help those less fortunate then me, even if it means that I'll be paying slightly more in taxes. I have said before, I am an opponent of the welfare system, but programs such as WIC, public healthcare, headstart, etc...I am in favor of. People like you always seem to think that as soon as any assistance is given to those in need, all of a sudden everyone is just going to stop working to abuse government handouts. The truth is, this country is full of many motivated people who will never stop working hard (partly because most government handouts suck ass).

Ahahaha, Hallen handed you your ass on a silver platter and this is your retort? I just love the part in bold, "I'm not going to donate, but the rest of you should, higher taxes yay!"

Heeter nailed it, there is obviously no point in continuing to debate with you.

[Aptyp]

Is it me, or is PBR now walking in circles.

from his own world:
1. Distribution of wealth is bad, but government should take care of starving and less fortunate ones.
2. United States has hard working motivated people, but it's okay if government takes some of their earnings, because they don't need any extra luxuries.
3. Current federal programs are failing and aren't economically sound, that's why they should be given more responsibility and put in charge of ALL of our health plans.


What have I missed so far?

[rwh11385]

It's my position that no one in the U.S. should starve, yes. I'm not a proponent of giving handouts, but I am in favor of helping those (especially children) who do not have the basic means to survive. I'm not so generous that I donate sums of money to charity--but I do tend to vote for the candidates that are more likely to help those less fortunate then me, even if it means that I'll be paying slightly more in taxes. I have said before, I am an opponent of the welfare system, but programs such as WIC, public healthcare, headstart, etc...I am in favor of. People like you always seem to think that as soon as any assistance is given to those in need, all of a sudden everyone is just going to stop working to abuse government handouts. The truth is, this country is full of many motivated people who will never stop working hard (partly because most government handouts suck ass).

You're a hypocrite. And still a dumbass.

[rwh11385]

Analysis that shows it is not just related to churches, either. It's a correlation between providing for yourself and giving to others, rather than providing for others with taxes. http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/0...-or-democrats/

[pbr87]

Wow, you really don't understand economics. Microsoft, for example, employs tens of thousands of people and has made many millionares. That's just a start though. Through their products, which opened up computer use to the world, they generated millions of successful businesses that generate huge amounts of wealth in the world. That's what I am talking about.

I do understand economics. I just wasn't clear on exactly what you were talking about. But I know how economic multiplier effects work. For example, mayor Bloomber predicted tens of thousands of jobs lost in Manhattan alone, because every job on Wall street generates enough capital to create three other jobs.

Of course it is. It isn't a good thing, but it is population control. It's not like I active seek to starve people, I don't. But, THEY ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. Where are their families?

Do you realize that you just admitted to being "okay" with American children starving?

You really can't read, can you? I was saying that pure faith in government is just as irrational as pure faith in religion. Does that sound like a religious person to you?

Once again, I misunderstood you. Sometimes when I read I scan over things very quickly...and sometimes when I'm on r3v, I'm slightly inebriated. In either case, I apologize for twisting your words.

I do not believe a church has any place within our government. I do believe the people have the right to practice a religion if they want to. Just like a liberal, you assume I am religious because I am conservative. Nope, sorry to disappoint you, I'm just intelligent, rational and logical about this stuff.

Just know that if you voted for McCain/Palin, you voted with the religious right-wing sector. Palin ran on a strongly pro-life campaign ticket.

See above.



Yes. And I served for 20 years so you could live a life of ignorance.

:bow:
:bow:
:bow:

Yes. What's your point?

Just a funny contrast to me. You seem to rank locking people up as more important than saving starving children.

Yes. Because I love my country and believe fully in what it stands for. I am happy and willing to pay my fair share to protect it.

Isn't providing health care to those in need a form of protection?
Protection from disease?
Protection from suffering?

On the subject of food and starvation, so it's your position that food should be government provided right as well then? I mean, food is the most basic thing we need to survive. Forget health care, without food there's no point. So, we should start a program where we provide all the food for everybody. We just get it free from the government. Good idea right? All the farmers and their lands should be taken by the government and that food can be distributed by the government. That way, everybody can have equal access to food. We'll tax all the luxury items like cake, prime rib, Pepsi, and potato chips at a much higher rate so all the rich people can pay for it. Sounds good, right?

It's my position that no one in the U.S. should starve, yes. I'm not a proponent of giving handouts, but I am in favor of helping those (especially children) who do not have the basic means to survive. I'm not so generous that I donate sums of money to charity--but I do tend to vote for the candidates that are more likely to help those less fortunate then me, even if it means that I'll be paying slightly more in taxes. I have said before, I am an opponent of the welfare system, but programs such as WIC, public healthcare, headstart, etc...I am in favor of. People like you always seem to think that as soon as any assistance is given to those in need, all of a sudden everyone is just going to stop working to abuse government handouts. The truth is, this country is full of many motivated people who will never stop working hard (partly because most government handouts suck ass).

[markseven]

I wonder how much pbr87 donates to charities, etc.

Just saying. It's funny to see the Democratic leadership on this, very few of them give very little from their vast fortunes, yet want to be charitable with all of our money.

It's not just the leadership:

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent
• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

Dang bleeding heart conservatives!

[rwh11385]

Solid point on food. One more step closer to the USSA.

I thought democrats were always more tight with their money than other peoples.

[z31maniac]

I wonder how much pbr87 donates to charities, etc.

Just saying. It's funny to see the Democratic leadership on this, very few of them give very little from their vast fortunes, yet want to be charitable with all of our money.

[Hallen]

Over 40% is "just a drop in the bucket" ?
?que?

Wow, you really don't understand economics. Microsoft, for example, employs tens of thousands of people and has made many millionares. That's just a start though. Through their products, which opened up computer use to the world, they generated millions of successful businesses that generate huge amounts of wealth in the world. That's what I am talking about.

They might. But that's probably okay with you. People such as yourself just see things like starvation as "population control".

Of course it is. It isn't a good thing, but it is population control. It's not like I active seek to starve people, I don't. But, THEY ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. Where are their families?

Because faith in God is paramount to all of course, right? For such a conservative, you don't seem to believe much at all in separation of church and state. Surprising, really.

You really can't read, can you? I was saying that pure faith in government is just as irrational as pure faith in religion. Does that sound like a religious person to you? I do not believe a church has any place within our government. I do believe the people have the right to practice a religion if they want to. Just like a liberal, you assume I am religious because I am conservative. Nope, sorry to disappoint you, I'm just intelligent, rational and logical about this stuff.

What about people who don't have a "chance", such as impoverished children? According to you, they should starve to death.

See above.

You pay for your government to defend you, but also to kill people.

Yes. And I served for 20 years so you could live a life of ignorance.

You pay for your government to defend you, but also to lock people in cages.

Yes. What's your point?

Happily?
Really?
Doubtful.

Yes. Because I love my country and believe fully in what it stands for. I am happy and willing to pay my fair share to protect it.

On the subject of food and starvation, so it's your position that food should be government provided right as well then? I mean, food is the most basic thing we need to survive. Forget health care, without food there's no point. So, we should start a program where we provide all the food for everybody. We just get it free from the government. Good idea right? All the farmers and their lands should be taken by the government and that food can be distributed by the government. That way, everybody can have equal access to food. We'll tax all the luxury items like cake, prime rib, Pepsi, and potato chips at a much higher rate so all the rich people can pay for it. Sounds good, right?

[mrsleeve]

Unfortunately you saw what 'hope' got us...

You forgot about change. Yeah been trying to stay outta this as much as I can, to keep my brain form exploding in an aneurysm. Well maybe I should let it go, so I can use my gold plated heath cart plan 1 last time while my employers can afford to provide it for me.

[markseven]

...and what PBR doesn't realize, that with this plan, eventually government will tell people to eat healthier or exercise a number of times a week. To not drink alcohol. Whatever else that would help lower federal spending on health.

But they'll probably still spend money on methodon and treatment for addicts.