NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, ok. This particular case centers on Texas republicans, but one could say that where the GOP in texas goes, the rest are sure to follow...

(originally written by "Texas Kaos")

link (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/21medicaid.html)
Texas not meeting kids' Medicaid needs, court agrees. Ruling in mothers' federal lawsuit means they can seek relief from state for failing to comply with 1996 agreement.

...

A group of mothers who sued Texas in the 1990s have won a legal victory in their fight to ensure that more children receive the Medicaid coverage to which they're entitled.

The 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals has refused to dismiss claims that state officials have systematically denied Medicaid coverage to hundreds of thousands of Texas children for years.

Last year, senior U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice found the state in violation of a 1996 consent agreement that was meant to improve health-care access for Medicaid-eligible children and young adults.

State officials had sought to overturn that decision.

Let's digest all this so far. The state first threw these kids off the program in 1992, they agreed to a consent decree in 1996. They violated that. We are in 2006. The kids who were harmed by this, a number in the hundreds of thousands as you will see are now at least 14 years old, probably older. How obscene is this? Goodhair and the boys have been scoring political points by "cutting taxes" . To do that they literally threw poor kids off of the health care program. Of course they did more than that. Let's recall the breaking heat wave and poverty story from yesterday and today. Remember this one?

link (http://www.chrisbell.com/blog/071106_heat)
It's high time that Rick Perry feels the heat for a change | Chris Bell for Texas Governor
"The System Benefit Fund in turn provided for the "Lite-Up Texas" program which gave a 17% discount on electricity rates to the state's most vulnerable populations, which amounted to an average relief of about $25 a month for a family of four earning less than $22,625 a year. The government was doing its part to protect us from the unforgiving southern elements...

Until Rick Perry stole $427 million from the System Benefit Fund in September 2005. (http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2196)

Perry cut down the public utilities safety net and dumped the money into the state's general revenue fund, which in our view amounts to fraud. Since last September, 363,317 needy homes once powered with help from the "Lite-Up Texas Fund" have been cut off. And now it's July and the heat wave has hit.

But as the less fortunate in Texas scramble feverishly to figure out how they're going to afford not to wilt in their own homes this summer, Rick Perry himself is just chillin'. He must be blasting the AC twenty-four-seven at the Governor's Mansion, because his utility statement for May '06 was an unbelievable $5,522.86. And guess who paid the bill.
You did."

To anyone who has not joined the Republican Borg Collective the record is clear. Goodhair and the boys have and continue to cling to power by abusing the poorest and weakest and rewarding the powerful.

Back to our Medicaid story for a moment:

San Antonio attorney Susan Zinn represents six Texas mothers who first sued the state on behalf of their children in 1992, a lawsuit that led to the consent agreement.

Zinn applauded the decision that was made public Thursday. She said the plaintiffs now plan to seek additional relief from Justice.

"For years now, Texas Medicaid officials have not complied with the federal Medicaid law or the consent decree that they agreed to in the first place," she said. "Unfortunately, children are being hurt.

"About one-third of our state's children have Medicaid," Zinn said. "If they don't get care when they need it, their health will suffer. They won't be able to achieve their full potential in school or later as adults."

More than 2.7 million Texas children are qualified to receive Medicaid benefits, Zinn said, but hundreds of thousands are not receiving the benefits they should be.

Neither state officials nor Zinn would speculate what the cost would be if the children who are not now receiving benefits were to receive them.

The plaintiffs are seeking no damages, just coverage for all the Texas children who should be receiving services, Zinn said.

In his 112-page order in August 2005, Justice ruled that the state "violated and continues to violate multiple . . . provisions (in the agreement) without regard for the obligations contained therein."

...

Mike Jones, a spokesman for the state Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the Medicaid program, said Thursday that agency officials were reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

Thursday's ruling marked the latest in a series of legal decisions against the state.

The lawsuit was filed in 1998 to enforce the consent decree, and Justice ruled two years later that the state was failing to provide required services.

For their part, state officials argued that Texas was spending $16 million a year in outreach to ensure everyone was receiving services and that it was complying with federal requirements.

Evidence in the case showed, however, that the number of children on Medicaid who received no medical checkups jumped from about 1 million in 1998 to 1.45 million in 2004.

In his decision against the state, Justice noted that the number of children "who should have received (medical) services but received none has actually increased since the entry of the consent decree."

Medicaid is a joint state-federal health insurance program available to low-income Americans.

Let's see if we can figure out the strategy; Force the weakest citizens to sue you for the aide they are promised in law and justice. If you win, great. If you lose, ignore the decision, make the weakest citizens sue you again , trying to force you to abide by the first decision. Do a fig leaf program that you can trumphet to any concerned citizens, but does not meet the courts decree. Make the weakest and poorest citizens sue you again , trying to force you to abide fully by the first decision. When you lose, say you are studying the decision. Repeat the process as long as necessary, until you are out of power. Finally, leave the problem to your successors . This is especially nasty if they are Democrats, because then you can accuse them of "raising taxes" when they finally must comply with the court order.

The other lesson we can take from all this is that it is not specifically these Repubilcans or these Conservatives who are the problem. We get the same ham handed cruelty wherever Conservative Repubicans govern, local, state or national. It is the ideology which is broken. It cannot govern, because it does not belive in using government power to care for the American people. This present case is simply another instance of this kind of thinking.

Let me close with an unvarnished instance of this ideology. This guy:

link (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4071897)
The e-mail, sent to news reporters, quotes the Rev. Grant Storm, a white minister and president of Conservative Christians for Reform, claiming a bailout mentality is ingrained in "black culture."

"The mentality is instilled within their churches and in their homes - of 'the government owes you, the government is your solution, and the government will come and help you.'

"When the government doesn't come and help them, frankly all they do is yap and complain," Storm says in an article titled "'Black Culture' Blamed for Hurricane Katrina Woes."

Welker, who announced in April that he would not run for re-election, said he forwarded the e-mail to promote a conference sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

[snip]

"It has nothing to do with me," he said. "I think it's great that we can pass things on when people can learn from other people."

[snip]

Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, said Welker's reasoning is a poor excuse for sending an e-mail that's based on a bigoted idea that African- Americans are morally inferior.

"He may not be running for re-election, and we can all be thankful for that," Carroll said. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result.""

In its baldest form the argument is this: the poor don't matter. Black or white, they are morally and humanly inferior to the people like Goodhair, like Representative Welker. Welker and Perry and their like are so deeply assimilated into the Conservative Republican Blog Collective Mind, they can't see how uncompassionate, how deeply unchristian all this is. They literally write off the pain of poor children as being a good thing, since it forces them to become "self-sufficient"! They will NEVER get it!


Thank you, Texas Kaos. I feel bad for your plight in red country.

Man, I know that I sure do.

In other news it's been decided that the surface of the sun is slightly warm.

If poor people want government to pay attention to them they should get up off their asses and make some hefty campaign contributions like everybody else.

Speaking of which, the IRS is cutting jobs, jobs which audit some of the wealthiest Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/business/23tax.html?ex=1154404800&en=882e147ffb6ed922&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Cant repeal estate tax? No worries!

Bears really do shit in the woods! :eek:

its official, democrats hate people who have actually worked their asses off for everything they earn, and support the crack addicts who dropped out of highschool to take care of their pregnant girlfriend.

Phbt, crack addicts don't support their pregnant girlfriends, they leave her on welfare and go buy crack.

Phbt, crack addicts don't support their pregnant girlfriends, they leave her on welfare and go buy crack.


your right, crack may have been a bit harsh. i should have gone with pot.

In other news, the Pope's a Catholic...



(Dontcha just love it when threads that look initially boring suddenly get filled with sarky comments?)

In other news, the Pope's a Catholic...



(Dontcha just love it when threads that look initially boring suddenly get filled with sarky comments?)
Speaking of which, I never got the comment:

"Does the Pope shit in the woods?"

"Em, no. No he doesn't."
:D

Speaking of which, I never got the comment:

"Does the Pope shit in the woods?"

"Em, no. No he doesn't."
:D

He might. You never know when Nature's gonna call...

its official, democrats hate people who have actually worked their asses off for everything they earn, and support the crack addicts who dropped out of highschool to take care of their pregnant girlfriend.

Some people work their asses off for everything they earn and then lose it all for whatever reason and end up very poor and homeless and whatnot.

We support the poor. If you've worked your ass off and are well off and all that, then kudos to you. You don't need our help.

It doesn't cheapen your life or your accomplishment if someone else takes a handout, though.

"Does the Pope shit in the woods?"


Not if he lives in the city.

"In other shock news a bear was spotted defecating in a wood, several fish were found living in water, and the Klu Klux Klan have stated their opposition to homosexual marriage..."

It doesn't cheapen your life or your accomplishment if someone else takes a handout, though.


That handout has to come from somewhere.

I hate the way that some people label all the poor as criminals and lowlives.
Its true, some poor people are poor because they have wasted their money on drugs/gambling/oter crappy things, but it is not true for all poor people.Anyway,why should children of poor people suffer for it?Its well known that many children from poorer backrounds have a worse education, poorer health and less oppurtunities than more well off people.This makes the problem worse because if your parents are poor, you are more likely to be poor continuing the cycle of poverty and ignorance.
The poor arent criminals,many in poverty stricken areas see no future for themselves,no oppurtunities to better themselves.This kind of social contitioning can lead to crime and drug abuse.
It isnt a crime to be poor(unless you are magically living in britain in after 1824, in wghich case you get sent to a poor house, or die on the streets starving)but what is a crime is the way some people treat the poor(as second class citizens and sub-humans)

I hate the way that some people label all the poor as criminals and lowlives.

I hate the way that some people label all the Republicans as bastard-ass lowlifes who want to screw the poor.

Coming from me, and an entire congregation of Republicans who run a distributed battered women's shelter, a food kitchen, and routinely send truckloads of supplies to disaster hit areas with no compensation, I find this thread to be an offensive strawman.

I hate the way that some people label all the Republicans as bastard-ass lowlifes who want to screw the poor.

Coming from me, and an entire congregation of Republicans who run a distributed battered women's shelter, a food kitchen, and routinely send truckloads of supplies to disaster hit areas with no compensation, I find this thread to be an offensive strawman.

Im not claiming all rebublicans hate the poor, I am merley pointing out that many 'richer' people hate the poor.Im british so I dont know any rebublicans, so I cannot comment on this.
And good for you!Unfortunatly there seem to be few people willing to help out the poor,and it would seem that many still treat the poor as criminals.
Sorry if you thought I was attacking rebublicans, I am not personally on that end of the political spectrum, but I dislike labelling anyone.If I had wanted to attack rebublicans I would have said'rebublicans treat the poor as criminals' rather than 'some peopel treat the poor as criminals.Sorry if you got the wrong idea.

And good for you!Unfortunatly there seem to be few people willing to help out the poor,and it would seem that many still treat the poor as criminals.


Quite a few Christians seem willing to help the poor, even without the government.

Of course, that's 20 percent of Christians doing 80 percent of the work to hopefully make a difference, while another 20 percent of Christians make us look like jackasses.

There's probably an 80/20 thing going on with the poor, too.

people who have actually worked their asses off for everything they earn

or, if they're smart, paid other people to work their asses off instead

President Bush's tax cuts helped the poor emmensly. Remember that the leftist claim that taxes hurt the poor more also meet that when taxes are cut they help the poor more.
A 4.6% unemployment rate helps the poor find jobs ( it is low)
the millions of jobs that have been created since Bush took office

the class warfare schtick no longer works. 10% are poor, 1% are millionaires. The 89% who are in between are a huge middle class. Class warfare just does not work in America because we are not revolutionary France. The left makes this mistake again and again.

The only education levels that voted for John Kerry were those who had no high school degree and those who had their doctorates. The great middle, the great 89% trended a majority to Bush, the national Republican candidate. You will find that this is remarkably consistant in history.

President Bush's tax cuts helped the poor emmensly. Remember that the leftist claim that taxes hurt the poor more also meet that when taxes are cut they help the poor more.

what?

the class warfare schtick no longer works. 10% are poor, 1% are millionaires. The 89% who are in between are a huge middle class.

hahaha

what?
Bush's tax cuts helped a lot of poor people. Especially the ones with kids. Remember the child tax credit that 71% of Democrats voted against?


hahaha
The same laughing that I heard when the Democrats failed to get 50% of the vote in every election since 1976.

The same laughing that I heard when the Democrats failed to get 50% of the vote in every election since 1976.


electoral or popular votes?

electoral or popular votes?
A plurality of popular votes. As popular as he was, Clinton never won a plurality.

Ok, ok. This particular case centers on Texas republicans, but one could say that where the GOP in texas goes, the rest are sure to follow...

(originally written by "Texas Kaos")

link (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/21medicaid.html)
Texas not meeting kids' Medicaid needs, court agrees. Ruling in mothers' federal lawsuit means they can seek relief from state for failing to comply with 1996 agreement.

...

A group of mothers who sued Texas in the 1990s have won a legal victory in their fight to ensure that more children receive the Medicaid coverage to which they're entitled.

The 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals has refused to dismiss claims that state officials have systematically denied Medicaid coverage to hundreds of thousands of Texas children for years.

Last year, senior U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice found the state in violation of a 1996 consent agreement that was meant to improve health-care access for Medicaid-eligible children and young adults.

State officials had sought to overturn that decision.

Let's digest all this so far. The state first threw these kids off the program in 1992, they agreed to a consent decree in 1996. They violated that. We are in 2006. The kids who were harmed by this, a number in the hundreds of thousands as you will see are now at least 14 years old, probably older. How obscene is this? Goodhair and the boys have been scoring political points by "cutting taxes" . To do that they literally threw poor kids off of the health care program. Of course they did more than that. Let's recall the breaking heat wave and poverty story from yesterday and today. Remember this one?

link (http://www.chrisbell.com/blog/071106_heat)
It's high time that Rick Perry feels the heat for a change | Chris Bell for Texas Governor
"The System Benefit Fund in turn provided for the "Lite-Up Texas" program which gave a 17% discount on electricity rates to the state's most vulnerable populations, which amounted to an average relief of about $25 a month for a family of four earning less than $22,625 a year. The government was doing its part to protect us from the unforgiving southern elements...

Until Rick Perry stole $427 million from the System Benefit Fund in September 2005. (http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2196)

Perry cut down the public utilities safety net and dumped the money into the state's general revenue fund, which in our view amounts to fraud. Since last September, 363,317 needy homes once powered with help from the "Lite-Up Texas Fund" have been cut off. And now it's July and the heat wave has hit.

But as the less fortunate in Texas scramble feverishly to figure out how they're going to afford not to wilt in their own homes this summer, Rick Perry himself is just chillin'. He must be blasting the AC twenty-four-seven at the Governor's Mansion, because his utility statement for May '06 was an unbelievable $5,522.86. And guess who paid the bill.
You did."

To anyone who has not joined the Republican Borg Collective the record is clear. Goodhair and the boys have and continue to cling to power by abusing the poorest and weakest and rewarding the powerful.

Back to our Medicaid story for a moment:

San Antonio attorney Susan Zinn represents six Texas mothers who first sued the state on behalf of their children in 1992, a lawsuit that led to the consent agreement.

Zinn applauded the decision that was made public Thursday. She said the plaintiffs now plan to seek additional relief from Justice.

"For years now, Texas Medicaid officials have not complied with the federal Medicaid law or the consent decree that they agreed to in the first place," she said. "Unfortunately, children are being hurt.

"About one-third of our state's children have Medicaid," Zinn said. "If they don't get care when they need it, their health will suffer. They won't be able to achieve their full potential in school or later as adults."

More than 2.7 million Texas children are qualified to receive Medicaid benefits, Zinn said, but hundreds of thousands are not receiving the benefits they should be.

Neither state officials nor Zinn would speculate what the cost would be if the children who are not now receiving benefits were to receive them.

The plaintiffs are seeking no damages, just coverage for all the Texas children who should be receiving services, Zinn said.

In his 112-page order in August 2005, Justice ruled that the state "violated and continues to violate multiple . . . provisions (in the agreement) without regard for the obligations contained therein."

...

Mike Jones, a spokesman for the state Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the Medicaid program, said Thursday that agency officials were reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

Thursday's ruling marked the latest in a series of legal decisions against the state.

The lawsuit was filed in 1998 to enforce the consent decree, and Justice ruled two years later that the state was failing to provide required services.

For their part, state officials argued that Texas was spending $16 million a year in outreach to ensure everyone was receiving services and that it was complying with federal requirements.

Evidence in the case showed, however, that the number of children on Medicaid who received no medical checkups jumped from about 1 million in 1998 to 1.45 million in 2004.

In his decision against the state, Justice noted that the number of children "who should have received (medical) services but received none has actually increased since the entry of the consent decree."

Medicaid is a joint state-federal health insurance program available to low-income Americans.

Let's see if we can figure out the strategy; Force the weakest citizens to sue you for the aide they are promised in law and justice. If you win, great. If you lose, ignore the decision, make the weakest citizens sue you again , trying to force you to abide by the first decision. Do a fig leaf program that you can trumphet to any concerned citizens, but does not meet the courts decree. Make the weakest and poorest citizens sue you again , trying to force you to abide fully by the first decision. When you lose, say you are studying the decision. Repeat the process as long as necessary, until you are out of power. Finally, leave the problem to your successors . This is especially nasty if they are Democrats, because then you can accuse them of "raising taxes" when they finally must comply with the court order.

The other lesson we can take from all this is that it is not specifically these Repubilcans or these Conservatives who are the problem. We get the same ham handed cruelty wherever Conservative Repubicans govern, local, state or national. It is the ideology which is broken. It cannot govern, because it does not belive in using government power to care for the American people. This present case is simply another instance of this kind of thinking.

Let me close with an unvarnished instance of this ideology. This guy:

link (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4071897)
The e-mail, sent to news reporters, quotes the Rev. Grant Storm, a white minister and president of Conservative Christians for Reform, claiming a bailout mentality is ingrained in "black culture."

"The mentality is instilled within their churches and in their homes - of 'the government owes you, the government is your solution, and the government will come and help you.'

"When the government doesn't come and help them, frankly all they do is yap and complain," Storm says in an article titled "'Black Culture' Blamed for Hurricane Katrina Woes."

Welker, who announced in April that he would not run for re-election, said he forwarded the e-mail to promote a conference sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

[snip]

"It has nothing to do with me," he said. "I think it's great that we can pass things on when people can learn from other people."

[snip]

Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, said Welker's reasoning is a poor excuse for sending an e-mail that's based on a bigoted idea that African- Americans are morally inferior.

"He may not be running for re-election, and we can all be thankful for that," Carroll said. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result.""

In its baldest form the argument is this: the poor don't matter. Black or white, they are morally and humanly inferior to the people like Goodhair, like Representative Welker. Welker and Perry and their like are so deeply assimilated into the Conservative Republican Blog Collective Mind, they can't see how uncompassionate, how deeply unchristian all this is. They literally write off the pain of poor children as being a good thing, since it forces them to become "self-sufficient"! They will NEVER get it!


Thank you, Texas Kaos. I feel bad for your plight in red country.

The funding for the NON Profit mental health organization I work for ..that deals with homeless and DD and mentaly disabled , has increased by 500 % under the REPUBLICAN administrations..it actually was cut during Clintons term...so go figure.

Generalities suck .


But you may have a point republicans hate poor people so much they are always trying to find ways to help them make money or keep money they make so they no longer have to be poor .

The funding for the NON Profit mental health organization I work for ..that deals with homeless and DD and mentaly disabled , has increased by 500 % under the REPUBLICAN administrations..it actually was cut during Clintons term...so go figure.

Generalities suck .

My sentiments exactly.

its official, democrats hate people who have actually worked their asses off for everything they earn, and support the crack addicts who dropped out of highschool to take care of their pregnant girlfriend.

Hmmm. Perhaps you could back that up with some evidence instead of just spouting stereotypes with no basis in fact, just some handy campaign propaganda?

Nah. A conservative with facts? That's just absurd.

Bush's tax cuts helped a lot of poor people. Especially the ones with kids. Remember the child tax credit that 71% of Democrats voted against?

which has what exactly to do with trying to make sense of what you said before?

The same laughing that I heard when the Democrats failed to get 50% of the vote in every election since 1976.

so what the fuck do democrats and their electoral performance have to do with your hilarious lack of even a basic grasp of class structure?

electoral or popular votes?

more to the point (divorced as it may be from anything), in every election, or just the 7 presidential elections since '76?

so what the fuck do democrats and their electoral performance have to do with your hilarious lack of even a basic grasp of class structure?

Maybe I should introduce you to the issue that causes union members to vote Republican in droves:

gun control

If you had the Democratic Party enshrine the 2nd Amendment as an inviolable individual right, and all their candidates got on that bandwagon, the 70 percent of union members who currently vote Republican might come back.

Maybe I should introduce you to the issue that causes union members to vote Republican in droves:

gun control

If you had the Democratic Party enshrine the 2nd Amendment as an inviolable individual right, and all their candidates got on that bandwagon, the 70 percent of union members who currently vote Republican might come back.

that's nice, but i still fail to grasp what it has to do with the structure of the class system.

(it would probably also help if the democrats paid more than lip service to labor issues - stopped playing neoliberals gone wild, repealed taft-hartley, fought against anti-freedom 'right-to-work' laws, etc)

that's nice, but i still fail to grasp what it has to do with the structure of the class system.

(it would probably also help if the democrats paid more than lip service to labor issues - stopped playing neoliberals gone wild, repealed taft-hartley, fought against anti-freedom 'right-to-work' laws, etc)

what I find is interesting is that my church (and the activities we do in support of the local poor) seems more socialist than the Democratic Party by leaps and bounds - except for the "opiate of the masses" part that we enjoy.

And we're all Republicans. Some of us wealthy. Not a Democrat in the congregation.

Some of us (some of the older parishoners) have given away the majority of their retirement wealth to finance our programs that help the poor.

The Democrats continue to lose every national race. No Democrat has broken 50% of the popular vote since 1963 except for Jimmy Carter ( who got 50.5% 2 years after watergate). The reason is that they pull this class Jealousy routine every few years and it fails. Right now unemployment is lower than the average of the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's and the 1990's. Job creation has been steady for years. The standard living for the "poor" in America is so high that our most obese population is those who are "poor". Give me a break. Class structure. I'l give you class structure.....since the Bush tax cuts revenue to the Government has increased ( just as it did after the kennedy and Reagan tax cuts) leaving even more money to waste on social programs.

LETS COMPARE THE TAX BRAKETS OF 2000 TO TODAY: ( clinton v. Bush)
2000 bracket: 2006 braket:
head of
household makes:
$10k 15% 10% ( 1/3 reduction)
$40 K 28% 15% ( nearly 1/2 reduction
$300K 39% 33% (1/7 reduction)

If Republicans hated poor people they would want to ban abortions so that there would be a significant reduction in the ppor's population. Oh wait, they do want to ban abortions. Sorry.

Many Republican politicians don't hate the poor... they just don't give a damn about them. As a matter of fact, neither do most Democratic politicians.

A more complete observation would be, "Rich, elitist snobs hate poor people."

It's unfair to group all Republicans together in to one homogenous belief system; if I recall correctly, that's called "stereotyping" and is a very bad trait for anyone who professes to accept or tolerate everyone and their differences.

A plurality of popular votes. As popular as he was, Clinton never won a plurality.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Plurality = more than any other single person got. Clinton did this twice.

Majority = More than 50%.

Im not claiming all rebublicans hate the poor

But the OP is.

If Republicans hated poor people they would want to ban abortions so that there would be a significant reduction in the ppor's population. Oh wait, they do want to ban abortions. Sorry.

1) Banning abortions may significantly reduce the ppor's population, but it won't reduce the poor population.

2) The majority (73%) of rank and file GOPers are pro-choice: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5899871/site/newsweek/
http://www.prochoicewisconsin.org/s04politicalupdates/press/200405131.shtml
It's the leadership's pandering to the Christofascists that keeps abortion on the party platform.

Hmmm. Perhaps you could back that up with some evidence instead of just spouting stereotypes with no basis in fact, just some handy campaign propaganda?

Nah. A conservative with facts? That's just absurd.
LOL. Hey, here's an idea, look at the posts above yours. Real Republicans, real stories, and you went after someone else. Grow some, then debate the people who show they have the ability to counter you, instead of chasing people with this "cite sources" garbage. Seeing as how you did little other than ignore all the posts you didn't like, and jump the one that looked easier to handle.

what I find is interesting is that my church (and the activities we do in support of the local poor) seems more socialist than the Democratic Party by leaps and bounds - except for the "opiate of the masses" part that we enjoy.

And we're all Republicans. Some of us wealthy. Not a Democrat in the congregation.

Some of us (some of the older parishoners) have given away the majority of their retirement wealth to finance our programs that help the poor.
You know, it is funny that the Republican stronghold, the church, is also one of the greatest contributors of aid to the poor and needy.

For instance, I've done mission work in Haiti and Costa Rica, as well as Mexico. Granted, I really wanted to go to Costa Rica so i could get a chance to surf, but the other two were just plain and simple mission trips with Providence Road Church of Christ in Greenville, SC, which has an excellent bond with my own church. Of course, I've been told that I "don't have extensive experience with the Latin American population" and that I "don't give a fuck about the poor." Well, its funny how us dickhead Christians spend all this money just helping other people. And Haiti sucks.

Ok, ok. This particular case centers on Texas republicans, but one could say that where the GOP in texas goes, the rest are sure to follow...

or white, they are morally and humanly inferior to the people like Goodhair, like Representative Welker[/B]. Welker and Perry and their like are so deeply assimilated into the Conservative Republican Blog Collective Mind, they can't see how uncompassionate, how deeply unchristian all this is. They literally write off the pain of poor children as being a good thing, since it forces them to become "self-sufficient"! They will NEVER get it!


Thank you, Texas Kaos. I feel bad for your plight in red country.

BS.


Noone is "entitled" to ANYTHING except what the constitution gaurantees.

BS.


Noone is "entitled" to ANYTHING except what the constitution gaurantees.

Have you read the constitution? Federalist papers? It's pretty damn hard to pin down what the constitution guarantees and what it doesnt.

I like my government erring on the side of preserving my rights.

Noone is "entitled" to ANYTHING except what the constitution gaurantees.

even taking your premise that the constitution got everything right for granted (despite the obvious stupidity of it), there are those bits about promoting and providing for the general welfare, right?

But the OP is.



1) Banning abortions may significantly reduce the ppor's population, but it won't reduce the poor population.

2) The majority (73%) of rank and file GOPers are pro-choice: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5899871/site/newsweek/
http://www.prochoicewisconsin.org/s04politicalupdates/press/200405131.shtml
It's the leadership's pandering to the Christofascists that keeps abortion on the party platform.


Sorry about my "ppor" typo. I meant to write "poor". This is great. Believe it or not I am an ardent Republican (although I am a pro-abortion tree hugging Republican). This is great news. Yeah the Christians are a bit on the goofy side and we do a lot of pandering to them. I always kind of thought that the pro-lifers were a majority. Oh man, if the majority of us pro-lifer Republicans could kick out the liberals in our party that want big government intrusion into the right to flush wombs of unwanted spawn, we would have an even greater Republican party.

Sorry about my "ppor" typo. I meant to write "poor". This is great. Believe it or not I am an ardent Republican (although I am a pro-abortion tree hugging Republican). This is great news. Yeah the Christians are a bit on the goofy side and we do a lot of pandering to them. I always kind of thought that the pro-lifers were a majority. Oh man, if the majority of us pro-lifer Republicans could kick out the liberals in our party that want big government intrusion into the right to flush wombs of unwanted spawn, we would have an even greater Republican party.

I hold you types responsible for what George Bush is doing. The GOP does not have enough internal dissent to stop it's leaders from going off the deep end.

You can't accuse the Democrats of not having enough internal dissent :) They barely qualify as an "organized" political party. Too Democratic and whatnot.

If Democrats could produce a guy that a dissenting Republican would vote for, we would stop supporting Bush in droves. The shinnanigans that the guy was doing to scientists within the Environmental protection Agency is about the worst thing any president has done. Plus he is pretty whacky when it comes to pornography and immigration. However, the last thing we need is some sort of Clinton type like Kerry when it comes to foreign and defense affairs. Clinton screwed America when he pulled our troops out of Somalia. Bush was smart enough to realize that we needed to build up the prestige of our armed forces by doing things the hard way in Iraq to show the world the world that we were not afraid to take losses. Sorry for ranting I will stop now.

Anyway back to the original post topic, Republicans hate poor people because most of them were poor when they started out in life but had the decency to crawl out of it instead of rolling over and acting like a victim that are owed something by society.

If Democrats could produce a guy that a dissenting Republican would vote for, we would stop supporting Bush in droves. The shinnanigans that the guy was doing to scientists within the Environmental protection Agency is about the worst thing any president has done. Plus he is pretty whacky when it comes to pornography and immigration. However, the last thing we need is some sort of Clinton type like Kerry when it comes to foreign and defense affairs. Clinton screwed America when he pulled our troops out of Somalia. Bush was smart enough to realize that we needed to build up the prestige of our armed forces by doing things the hard way in Iraq to show the world the world that we were not afraid to take losses. Sorry for ranting I will stop now.

Anyway back to the original post topic, Republicans hate poor people because most of them were poor when they started out in life but had the decency to crawl out of it instead of rolling over and acting like a victim that are owed something by society.

That's BS. There are millions of Democrats, you could help us pick the right candidate any time you like. Not enough people participate in the primaries as is.

Lol, you are mad at Cliton for pulling troops out of Somalia? How did that screw America? (I can see how it may have screwed the Somalians).

Bush has certainly not built up the prestige of our armed forces. Stop loss orders, and over extended our resources achieve the opposite.

Bush does do things the hard way :) But you have confused the hard way with the right way. Lying to the nation is the wrong way, false pretense for war, wrong way, outing CIA agents, wrong way, doctoring intelligence, wrong way.

Speaking of which, the IRS is cutting jobs, jobs which audit some of the wealthiest Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/business/23tax.html?ex=1154404800&en=882e147ffb6ed922&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Cant repeal estate tax? No worries!

The New York Times is not worth the paper it's written on.

As for Republicans hating poor people, this is completely untrue.

That's BS. There are millions of Democrats, you could help us pick the right candidate any time you like. Not enough people participate in the primaries as is.

Lol, you are mad at Cliton for pulling troops out of Somalia? How did that screw America? (I can see how it may have screwed the Somalians).

Bush has certainly not built up the prestige of our armed forces. Stop loss orders, and over extended our resources achieve the opposite.

Bush does do things the hard way :) But you have confused the hard way with the right way. Lying to the nation is the wrong way, false pretense for war, wrong way, outing CIA agents, wrong way, doctoring intelligence, wrong way.


Lying to the nation; Clinton knows all about that.

Lying to the nation; Clinton knows all about that.Of course, Clinton was only lying about a relationship he had while Bush misled us into thinking Iraq is "free".

Lol, you are mad at Cliton for pulling troops out of Somalia? How did that screw America? (I can see how it may have screwed the Somalians).

Yes I am mad. He pulled us out of there because we took a few casualties. This showed the world that America is afraid to take casualties and if you kill a few of our guys we run away with our tail tucked between our legs.

Bush has certainly not built up the prestige of our armed forces. Stop loss orders, and over extended our resources achieve the opposite.

The only beef I have with him on this is that they did not want me in the military because I am a fatass. So what if I am a big target, put me in a fricking jeep or something.

Bush does do things the hard way :) But you have confused the hard way with the right way. Lying to the nation is the wrong way, false pretense for war, wrong way, outing CIA agents, wrong way, doctoring intelligence, wrong way.

Do not blame Bush for the war. Blame Saddam. Saddam blocked access to labs and factories and the UN told him he had to let the UN in to inspect. If the guy had nothing to hide he should have complied. The British did a much better job of explaining to the people in the form of a white paper about how bad the torture and oppression was in Iraq so if you looked at that stuff instead of only worrying about what Bush was saying any sensible reader would be like "Dang, I do not care if this guy has nukes or not lets end the coffin prisons now."

I must say that I am ignorant of this outing of CIA agents business. Are you referring to Carl Rove? Any American who reveals the identities of our spies should be shot.

Of course, Clinton was only lying about a relationship he had while Bush misled us into thinking Iraq is "free".

Bush didn't lie that's why he has not faced any disciplinary action and why Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives.

Bush didn't lie that's why he has not faced any disciplinary action and why Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives.Eh? I think the fact that Republicans hold a majority has a little bit more to do with that.

Perhaps that's something to do with the Democrats being wrong and the majority of people finding them morally reprehensible.

Hmm Republicans hate poor people and Democrats want to keep families in a permanant cycle of programs meant to help them.

No wonder the two sides cant see eye to eye.

Perhaps that's something to do with the Democrats being wrong and the majority of people finding them morally reprehensible.Just like the majority of nonracist parties in the Weimar Republic were wrong? I think you're mixing up popular opinion with justification.

I'm ashamed that you would associate a poor-person hating moderate such as myself with those power-corrupt and inept folks in the Republican Party.

Comparing Bush to Hitler; that must have taken a lot of thought. America never elected a far right politician, Pat Buchanan who got 0.5% of the vote in 2000 is considered 'moderate' compared to the likes of the French National Front and all the other European Fascist Parties (BNP etc.).

Americans are naturally conservative because they are both individualist and traditionalist; that is why Bush was elected.

I'm ashamed that you would associate a poor-person hating moderate such as myself with those power-corrupt and inept folks in the Republican Party.


You can call the GOP many things; inept isn't one of them.

Current Control of White House, Senate, House of Representatives, majority of governor's mansions and a majority of state legislatures.

Lol, you are mad at Cliton for pulling troops out of Somalia? How did that screw America? (I can see how it may have screwed the Somalians).

Yes I am mad. He pulled us out of there because we took a few casualties. This showed the world that America is afraid to take casualties and if you kill a few of our guys we run away with our tail tucked between our legs.

Bush has certainly not built up the prestige of our armed forces. Stop loss orders, and over extended our resources achieve the opposite.

The only beef I have with him on this is that they did not want me in the military because I am a fatass. So what if I am a big target, put me in a fricking jeep or something.

Bush does do things the hard way :) But you have confused the hard way with the right way. Lying to the nation is the wrong way, false pretense for war, wrong way, outing CIA agents, wrong way, doctoring intelligence, wrong way.

Do not blame Bush for the war. Blame Saddam. Saddam blocked access to labs and factories and the UN told him he had to let the UN in to inspect. If the guy had nothing to hide he should have complied. The British did a much better job of explaining to the people in the form of a white paper about how bad the torture and oppression was in Iraq so if you looked at that stuff instead of only worrying about what Bush was saying any sensible reader would be like "Dang, I do not care if this guy has nukes or not lets end the coffin prisons now."

I must say that I am ignorant of this outing of CIA agents business. Are you referring to Carl Rove? Any American who reveals the identities of our spies should be shot.


You can't possibly be that naive. It is not necessary that the US blow somethign up every few years so people fear us. They all remember the US Civil war, WW2, Korea, etc.

Do you know why cowboy movies were so popular world wide? Because the whole world considers the US to be stuck in a standoff scene from "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." We don't need MORE of a reputation as foolish, reckless, cowboys.

Saddam had no bloody choice. He was an inhuman monster, a military strongman, trying to hold together a secular government in a region torn apart by religious wars. He took the only choice available to him, try to seem strong enough Iran doesn't invade, but still destroy every WMD.

Bush knew fool well there were no WMDs. The whole country knew it, Colin Powell gave speaches about how well Bush had done getting Iraq to get rid of the WMDs. Then started doctoring intelligence, removing anything questioning WMDs and accepting intelligence they knew was unreliable. They did this at every level of the intelligence process they could reach, and they made Colin Powell compromise himself by forcing him to lie to the UN.

Here are some good links about discussing people in our intelligence agency that have been attacked by Bush, as part of his policy of politicizing our intelligence services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame

They also remember Viet Na

You can call the GOP many things; inept isn't one of them.

Current Control of White House, Senate, House of Representatives, majority of governor's mansions and a majority of state legislatures.

Where the GOP has failed the US people they have done so deliberately. Iraq was never a war that could end, but that was unimportant. A country always unites after tragedy, putting faith in it's leaders. 911 was a blank check.

Bush is a puppet, an actor. He is now a lame duck, who will take all the heat for Iraq. People have already forgotten that the GOP congress wrote him many blank checks, greatly increasing executive power.

This is what occursd when one party controls every branch of government for too long. They believe they can get away with anything, and corruption runs rampant.

The Democrats can't even act as watchdogs now, because they don't have nearly enough votes in any branch of government to start any watchdog initiatives.

Comparing Bush to Hitler; that must have taken a lot of thought. America never elected a far right politician, Pat Buchanan who got 0.5% of the vote in 2000 is considered 'moderate' compared to the likes of the French National Front and all the other European Fascist Parties (BNP etc.).

Americans are naturally conservative because they are both individualist and traditionalist; that is why Bush was elected.You know, I was actually going to use the example of how slavery was kept alive in the South due to public opinion and how that was a good example for how something popular isn't guaranteed to be the right thing. I expected a "You're so biased against the South!" rant, so I picked an example from my other home country. But I suppose an inappropriate attempt at a Godwin coupled with an attempted dodge of my point is better than that.

Lying to the nation; Clinton knows all about that.

You are actually comparing lying about sex to lying about war?

Dude, sex fun and unimportant. War, evil and very important.

Why you elect people to office anyway? Who was running on an anti oral sex platform? I choose the head of my exective, the commander in chief of the armed force based on how honestly he will deal with military issues.

You know, I was actually going to use the example of how slavery was kept alive in the South due to public opinion and how that was a good example for how something popular isn't guaranteed to be the right thing. I expected a "You're so biased against the South!" rant, so I picked an example from my other home country. But I suppose an inappropriate attempt at a Godwin coupled with an attempted dodge of my point is better than that.

Slavery somehow made it into the Southern identity. It was a serious culture war, the prosperious industrial north versus the rural south.

The South knew it was going to have to phase out slavery somehow. But they were scared shitless what would happen if the slaves were allowed to seek justice.

You can't possibly be that naive. It is not necessary that the US blow somethign up every few years so people fear us. They all remember the US Civil war, WW2, Korea, etc.

Do you know why cowboy movies were so popular world wide? Because the whole world considers the US to be stuck in a standoff scene from "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." We don't need MORE of a reputation as foolish, reckless, cowboys.

Saddam had no bloody choice. He was an inhuman monster, a military strongman, trying to hold together a secular government in a region torn apart by religious wars. He took the only choice available to him, try to seem strong enough Iran doesn't invade, but still destroy every WMD.

Bush knew fool well there were no WMDs. The whole country knew it, Colin Powell gave speaches about how well Bush had done getting Iraq to get rid of the WMDs. Then started doctoring intelligence, removing anything questioning WMDs and accepting intelligence they knew was unreliable. They did this at every level of the intelligence process they could reach, and they made Colin Powell compromise himself by forcing him to lie to the UN.

Here are some good links about discussing people in our intelligence agency that have been attacked by Bush, as part of his policy of politicizing our intelligence services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame

They also remember Viet Na

Ok. Saddam is a human monster but it was a bad thing to get rid of him? I do not mean to offend you but you sound like a Democrat when you say stuff like that.

I think you missed my point on the Somalia issue. The point was not whether we blew stuff up to make people fear us. The point was that we should always continue with a mission until we achieve it and certainly not stop merely because we lose 30 guys in a botched mission. We showed potential enemies of the world that America does not have the stomach for even small losses. The French had a similar policy during the start of World War II. They were so traumatized by their losses in World War I that at the start of the war in the "phony war" phase they made some really small advances into Germany using only colonial troops so as to economize on the shedding of French blood. This attitude caused them to avoid seizing an important early initiative that could have prevented the Reich from seizing the continent. It is this attitude that we must never have. If a job is worth doing then it is worth doing right.

If a mission is not worth the loss of life we should not do it. Once we are committed though we should show a Japanese like intensity.

Did not we go to war to force the Iraqis to give us access to inspections of possible WMDs? Who cares if they were there or not? I certainly do not. I think that the US is safer without Saddam. Do you? He certainly was not our ally. Whenever anyone who opposes us does not let us fully inspect their WMD programs it gives me the heeby jeebies. Does Iran comfort you? Does North Korea?

Thanks for the information on the intelligence stuff. This seems like the sort of thing that needs to be handled by a closed session Congressional hearing or the courts. I am by no means a Bush lover but I am all for the war.

The lessons of Viet Nam as far as I am concerned were that politicians should stay the hell out of war fighting. Politicians bungled everything. Plus we left after the Tet offensive when we really were starting to crack the enemy. The lesson which we learned the hard way is to keep politicians out of strategy and let the professionals handle it and to remain committed to the mission.

You are actually comparing lying about sex to lying about war?

You keep talking about this "lying about war" stuff. I don't know where you're getting your facts. I get mine from U.S. News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051128/28barone.htm). Think what you want about the war, but remember that repeating "he lied, he lied" isn't going to make it true.


It is said that a big lie can work if it is repeated often enough. For weeks, leading Democrats have been hammering away at the Big Lie that George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

(snip)

Bush, Cheney, and the administration have the truth on their side. Exhaustive and authoritative examinations of the prewar intelligence, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, by the Silberman-Robb commission in 2005, and by the British commission headed by Lord Butler, have established that U.S. intelligence agencies, and the intelligence organizations of leading countries like Britain, France, and Germany, believed that Saddam Hussein's regime was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction--chemical and biological weapons, which the regime had used before, and nuclear weapons, which it was working on in the 1980s.

You keep talking about this "lying about war" stuff. I don't know where you're getting your facts. I get mine from U.S. News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051128/28barone.htm). Think what you want about the war, but remember that repeating "he lied, he lied" isn't going to make it true.

Face it. He used faulty intelligence from the mid 1980s, and chopped it up to make it appear relevant. The Iraq War was in the planning stages long before September 11th, and there has never been any credible link found between Al Queada and Saddam Hussein. Strangely enough, Osama Bin Laden would have been one of Saddam's worst enemies.

Although evidence of WMD was searched for by the Iraq Survey Group, their Final Report of September 2004, stated "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."[59] In the March 2005 Addendum to the Report, the Special Advisor furthermore went on to state that "ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts."[60] (For comparison, the U.S. Department of Defense itself was famously unable in 1998 to report the whereabouts of "56 airplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin command launch units".[61])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom

Furthermore, the only reason we knew that Iraq ever had chemical weapons is because the Pentagon has their copy of the receipts. The US sold chemical and other weapons to Saddam Hussein to keep him from losing to Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.

Regardless of President Bush's current intentions on Iraq, whatever they may be, the fact that he led the US, my country, to war under false pretenses automatically calls all of his intentions in question.

Face it. He used faulty intelligence from the mid 1980s, and chopped it up to make it appear relevant. The Iraq War was in the planning stages long before September 11th, and there has never been any credible link found between Al Queada and Saddam Hussein. Strangely enough, Osama Bin Laden would have been one of Saddam's worst enemies.

Furthermore, the only reason we knew that Iraq ever had chemical weapons is because the Pentagon has their copy of the receipts. The US sold chemical and other weapons to Saddam Hussein to keep him from losing to Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.

Regardless of President Bush's current intentions on Iraq, whatever they may be, the fact that he led the US, my country, to war under false pretenses automatically calls all of his intentions in question.

I'm not saying there was no pretext for entering the war. I don't have that kind of insight into the minds of politicians. But so far, I've seen credible evidence that says he was not lying and credible evidence that says he was. In the face of evidence of equal weight but contradictory conclusions, I err on the side of innocence, not guilt. You appear to do the opposite, that's your right and I could never criticize it.

I have my own reasons for my opinion. (Don't ask me what it is because I'm in the U.S. military and I'm not allowed to publicly state an opinion other than that I dislike the concept of war in general.) You have your reasons. I'll leave it at that.

Ok. Saddam is a human monster but it was a bad thing to get rid of him? I do not mean to offend you but you sound like a Democrat when you say stuff like that.


A slave to the party in power might mischaracterize what I said that way. There were good ways to get rid of Saddam. None were chosen.


I think you missed my point on the Somalia issue. The point was not whether we blew stuff up to make people fear us. The point was that we should always continue with a mission until we achieve it and certainly not stop merely because we lose 30 guys in a botched mission.


You aren't thinkign big picture. Way too much focus on a specific mission, willing to sacrifice everything else to achieve it. You must conduct your current mission with an eye to making the next mission possible, and not compromising every other on going mission.

Somalia was not of sufficient importance at that exact moment to justify further loss of troops. The right answer was to pull out, returning when possible and necessary.


We showed potential enemies of the world that America does not have the stomach for even small losses.


You need to get your mind out of the school yard fight. It's not about being able to take a bloody lip without flinching. It's about spending resources on the right cause at the right time.


The French had a similar policy during the start of World War II. They were so traumatized by their losses in World War I that at the start of the war in the "phony war" phase they made some really small advances into Germany using only colonial troops so as to economize on the shedding of French blood. This attitude caused them to avoid seizing an important early initiative that could have prevented the Reich from seizing the continent. It is this attitude that we must never have. If a job is worth doing then it is worth doing right.

If a mission is not worth the loss of life we should not do it. Once we are committed though we should show a Japanese like intensity.


The situation on the ground is contantly changing. There are a thousand tiems when the best response is to withdraw, to return later. Stop thinking like a marine, and think like a naval admiral. Think like Sun Tzu. We are discussing international politics.



Did not we go to war to force the Iraqis to give us access to inspections of possible WMDs? Who cares if they were there or not? I certainly do not. I think that the US is safer without Saddam.


No one is arguing there weren't good ways to remove Saddam. You are off topic.


Do you? He certainly was not our ally. Whenever anyone who opposes us does not let us fully inspect their WMD programs it gives me the heeby jeebies. Does Iran comfort you? Does North Korea?

Thanks for the information on the intelligence stuff. This seems like the sort of thing that needs to be handled by a closed session Congressional hearing or the courts. I am by no means a Bush lover but I am all for the war.

The lessons of Viet Nam as far as I am concerned were that politicians should stay the hell out of war fighting. Politicians bungled everything. Plus we left after the Tet offensive when we really were starting to crack the enemy. The lesson which we learned the hard way is to keep politicians out of strategy and let the professionals handle it and to remain committed to the mission.

It can never be up to an army whether to continue fighting. Morale is of crucial improtance to soldiers, right up until the moment retreat is called the soldier must believe he can win.

Military victory in Viet Nam was not useful. We had to pull out because we had won every military engagement, but lost the hearts and minds.

Quite a few Christians seem willing to help the poor, even without the government.
Too many Christians in America seem to want to prevent the government from helping the poor at all.

And I doubt that all of the aforementioned Christians are exactly slogging away every spare minute of their time to feed the homeless and disabled.

Maybe I should introduce you to the issue that causes union members to vote Republican in droves:

gun control

If you had the Democratic Party enshrine the 2nd Amendment as an inviolable individual right, and all their candidates got on that bandwagon, the 70 percent of union members who currently vote Republican might come back.
Why would union members put gun ownership above their own financial well being and the security of their jobs?


And we're all Republicans. Some of us wealthy. Not a Democrat in the congregation.

How do you know that, and out of curiosity, why do you guys all vote Republican?

You know, it is funny that the Republican stronghold, the church, is also one of the greatest contributors of aid to the poor and needy.
It's not strange that a Christian Church helps the poor. What is bizarre though, is that it votes mostly Republican.

Noone is "entitled" to ANYTHING except what the constitution gaurantees.
So are you for secular constitutional rule or Christian-influenced legislation? You are the biggest hypocrite here. On economic issues, you want to keep the true Christian position of helping the poor locked behind a wall of separation of church and state, but on social issues you use the faith as the basis of your political opinions.

Don't make me quote Deuteronomy at you.

Too many Christians in America seem to want to prevent the government from helping the poor at all.

And I doubt that all of the aforementioned Christians are exactly slogging away every spare minute of their time to feed the homeless and disabled.
You, are a dumbass. Should Christians be spending every moment of there time helping the poor? A lot of us probably help out more than you. And I sure as hell don't know anyone who wants to prevent the government from helping the poor.

You, are a dumbass. Should Christians be spending every moment of there time helping the poor? A lot of us probably help out more than you. And I sure as hell don't know anyone who wants to prevent the government from helping the poor.

Christian is a spectrum. The word means "Christ like." They were called Christians becaused they emulated... Christ.

To be perectly Christian then yes, you should be spending every moment of your life helping the poor.

Take Gandhi for example, that guy was Christ like. When you are fasting for weeks you don't get to take an hour off. It was a 24/7 thing.

Republicans hate?! No they don't!!!! :eek:

You, are a dumbass. Should Christians be spending every moment of there time helping the poor? A lot of us probably help out more than you.
Either they must do it, or have the government do it. The Christian who does nothing to help the poor and demands that no money be taxed from him for the purpose is a bad Christian in my opinion.

And I sure as hell don't know anyone who wants to prevent the government from helping the poor.
Eliminating welfare, education and healthcare = preventing the government from helping the poor.

Perhaps that's something to do with the Democrats being wrong and the majority of people finding them morally reprehensible.
Thus both parties are wrong, and morally reprehensible. The Republicans defend their own corruption and illegal activity, and so do the Democrats.

Either they must do it, or have the government do it. The Christian who does nothing to help the poor and demands that no money be taxed from him for the purpose is a bad Christian in my opinion..
Agreed, but you made it seem like Christians are hypocritical unless they spend ridiculous amounts of time.

Eliminating welfare, education and healthcare = preventing the government from helping the poor.
This is Christian politicians mainly. Most, at least the ones I know, do not agree with these courses of action.

Agreed, but you made it seem like Christians are hypocritical unless they spend ridiculous amounts of time.


This is Christian politicians mainly. Most, at least the ones I know, do not agree with these courses of action.

Some Christians on television are hypocritical. Christianity dominates the United States. It is ludicrous to claim Christmas is under attack. We live in a pluralistic culture, but the ruling elite all profess Christian values.

They have to, to do anything else would be political suicide.

Hypocracy is the price of politicizing religion, and demanding a faith check for public office.

Your headline should read - It's official: Republicans hate long-term insoluble bread and circus bullshit peon programs.

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to copyright that quote.

Your headline should read - It's official: Republicans hate long-term insoluble bread and circus bullshit peon programs.

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to copyright that quote.

Are you referring to Haliburton? Iraq? We've been in there long term, it was a bread and circus to get Bush reelected (the WMDs didn't exist remember?, we didn't find Bin Laden there either).

Are you referring to Haliburton? Iraq? We've been in there long term, it was a bread and circus to get Bush reelected (the WMDs didn't exist remember?, we didn't find Bin Laden there either).
A challenge.


You are presented with a 3'X3'X6" box of completely white sand. There are two more boxes of the same size right next to it, as well as a smaller sandbox that may or may not have been an option. Someone has 6 hours to hide sayyy, 5 grains of pitch black sand and rake the sand into natural contours. you have 48 hours to move the sand grains using a single pair of tweezers while someone pours fire ants down your pants. They also may have moved the grains into the other sandboxes but except for using the MarkI eyeball, you can't touch those other sandboxes. Do you think you'd find the sand grains?




Also, we have found WMD in quite a few seperate locations albeit only trace amounts.

Well, my after-tax earnings put me on the edge or below the "poverty line," and yet I usually vote the GOP ticket... and so, since I care about myself, it follows that I care about at least one "poor" person. Yup. ;)

Sorry if this post is off-topic - being past page 6 and all, the OP has probably been forgotten.. :p

Too many Christians in America seem to want to prevent the government from helping the poor at all.

How do you know that, and out of curiosity, why do you guys all vote Republican?

It's not strange that a Christian Church helps the poor. What is bizarre though, is that it votes mostly Republican.

Because that is consistent with the conservative philosophy of limited government. Many believe (myself included) that the poor can be helped more effectively at the local or private level. Involving government:

1. Wastes much of the money that should be given to the poor in administrative costs and mismanagement.
2. Does not discriminate between those who actually need the money and those who are just scamming the system.

Another reason: the Republican party does not wish to ban religion, or any expression of it, from the public square. Don't allow establishment of any single religion by the government, as the Constitution literally says, but don't prohibit any expression of it.

Among others.

Agreed, but you made it seem like Christians are hypocritical unless they spend ridiculous amounts of time.
I don't say "ridiculous amounts of time". I'm talking about those who do absolutely nothing.

This is Christian politicians mainly. Most, at least the ones I know, do not agree with these courses of action.
So maybe they should use democracy and not vote for these politicians.

Because that is consistent with the conservative philosophy of limited government. Many believe (myself included) that the poor can be helped more effectively at the local or private level. Involving government:

1. Wastes much of the money that should be given to the poor in administrative and just plain mismanagement.
2. Does not discriminate, or discriminates in the wrong way, between those who actually need the money and those who are just scamming the system.

Conservative ideology does not take precedent over the word of the Lord.

If what you say is true, then why does America have more poverty than the relatively generous welfare states of Europe?

Conservative ideology does not take precedent over the word of the Lord.

If what you say is true, then why does America have more poverty than the relatively generous welfare states of Europe?
Um, firstly, do we measure them the same? No, we don't use the same flipping measuring stick for the poverty level as europe. We use a measure that depends mainly upon food costs. The EU uses a 60% below median income measure. Completely different systems.

Conservative ideology does not take precedent over the word of the Lord.

If what you say is true, then why does America have more poverty than the relatively generous welfare states of Europe?

Not sure what the guy was saying, but several European states decline to make public their percentage living under the poverty line. The UK lists 17% to our 12 here, but Germany and Spain (to name two) don't list a number.

Conservative ideology does not take precedent over the word of the Lord.

If what you say is true, then why does America have more poverty than the relatively generous welfare states of Europe?
Depends on how you define poverty.
It is my understanding that many poverty calculations are determined by taking the mean or median income, and assigning a percentage below that as the poverty line.

I would argue that the average "poor" person in America is significantly better off than the average poor person in Europe.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, and, if so, provide, evidence that America has more poverty, and that poverty assignment is equivalent in Europe.

Regardless, I didn't say conservative ideology takes precedent over the word of the Lord. Christians are commanded to help the poor. The difference here is the method of delivering that help. I believe it is more effective at the local, private level.

If your arguement is that the Bible speaks of the government helping the poor, remember this.

When the God of the Old Testament gave laws in the Pentateuch about helping the poor, keep in mind that it was a pure theocracy. In America, our government is secular, and therefore more suspect than if, say, God were directly leading us in a pillar of fire.

Edit:
Found this interesting article on European poverty statistics.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071006A

Conservative ideology does not take precedent over the word of the Lord.
HAHAAHAH!!! Well, some would have you believe that conservative ideology is exactly equal to the word of the Lord. (Or the Word (listen hard and you can hear the Upper Case) of the Lord as plunked down in the Holy Bible).

From "The Simpsons"
TV Host: "'So you are calling God a liar? An Unbiased Comparison of Evolution and Creationism.' Let's say hi to two books. One, The Bible, was written by our Lord. The other, The Origin of Species, was written by a cowardly drunk named Charles Darwin."

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to stray off topic, but I was trying to take a drink when I read that. I laughed.

A challenge.


You are presented with a 3'X3'X6" box of completely white sand. There are two more boxes of the same size right next to it, as well as a smaller sandbox that may or may not have been an option. Someone has 6 hours to hide sayyy, 5 grains of pitch black sand and rake the sand into natural contours. you have 48 hours to move the sand grains using a single pair of tweezers while someone pours fire ants down your pants. They also may have moved the grains into the other sandboxes but except for using the MarkI eyeball, you can't touch those other sandboxes. Do you think you'd find the sand grains?




Also, we have found WMD in quite a few seperate locations albeit only trace amounts.

Trace amount of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION are what we call, weapons. The trace negates the mass.

I think I'll reject your challenge :)

Selginius, let me restate what you said:


1. Wastes much of the money that should be USED TO DO X in administrative costs and mismanagement.
2. Does not discriminate between THE BEST WAY TO USE THE MONEY and CORRUPTION.

That's an argument that can be used against any government service. The fact of the matter is the government doesn't do anything perfectly. It has too many checks and balances thrown in to be truly efficient.

Government is forced to step in when the problem is not being solved by the rest of the culture. If you don't think there is a poverty problem... great. A lot of us do.

Its really hard being poor when the " Republicans " keepp trying to make you rich ...:D :D :D :D

Selginius, let me restate what you said:


1. Wastes much of the money that should be USED TO DO X in administrative costs and mismanagement.
2. Does not discriminate between THE BEST WAY TO USE THE MONEY and CORRUPTION.

That's an argument that can be used against any government service. The fact of the matter is the government doesn't do anything perfectly. It has too many checks and balances thrown in to be truly efficient.

Government is forced to step in when the problem is not being solved by the rest of the culture. If you don't think there is a poverty problem... great. A lot of us do.

Which is probably the crux of our disagreement - I believe firmly in Reagan's famous quote: " "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." " And more to the point: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Government more often is the problem, rather than the problem-solver, which is why I believe in the smallest government that is practically possible.

I submit to you that the government's abysmal performance during the Katrina debacle would have occurred under any administration, because "there are too many checks and balances thrown in to be truly efficient", as you said.

A large percentage of the populace lived at or close to the poverty line, who were thus used to relying on the government for welfare, foodstamps, etc., and their government failed them. While I would certainly not blame any of the Katrina victims, I believe the crisis could have been lessened if more folks had relied on themselves rather than the government, who promised but did not deliver, to get them out.

I was actually encouraged when I saw recently in the news that African-Americans are now more distrustful of the government since Katrina. Good - everyone should be more reliant on themselves and their local communities, rather than on nameless, faceless government entities.

The supposed War on Poverty was started by LBJ almost 50 years ago. The government has had its chance, and a long record of failures. Private, local giving should be encouraged more.

Its really hard being poor when the " Republicans " keepp trying to make you rich ...:D :D :D :D

Nah, it's Libertarians that actually help business. You have to be into Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, or Televangelism to profit from this administration :)

Nah, it's Libertarians that actually help business. You have to be into Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, or Televangelism to profit from this administration :)

Amen.

Amen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not libertarian. I believe it is the responsibility of government to do the most important tasks that aren't otherwise getting done.

But I want someone next to me arguing for limited government, and we can all agree to protect each others basic human, moral, intrinsic, inalienable rights.

NeoCons are some chimaeric political creatures, that are not conservative, not for limited government, etc.

I'm hoping that Democrats will strike a deal with Libertarians and oust the party in power. We need strong political watchdogs, we need another reform movement :) I'd love a tickect with a Democratic presidential candidiate, and a Libertarian Vice president.

Which is probably the crux of our disagreement - I believe firmly in Reagan's famous quote: " "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." " And more to the point: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Government more often is the problem, rather than the problem-solver, which is why I believe in the smallest government that is practically possible.

I submit to you that the government's abysmal performance during the Katrina debacle would have occurred under any administration, because "there are too many checks and balances thrown in to be truly efficient", as you said.

A large percentage of the populace lived at or close to the poverty line, who were thus used to relying on the government for welfare, foodstamps, etc., and their government failed them. While I would certainly not blame any of the Katrina victims, I believe the crisis could have been lessened if more folks had relied on themselves rather than the government, who promised but did not deliver, to get them out.

I was actually encouraged when I saw recently in the news that African-Americans are now more distrustful of the government since Katrina. Good - everyone should be more reliant on themselves and their local communities, rather than on nameless, faceless government entities.

The supposed War on Poverty was started by LBJ almost 50 years ago. The government has had its chance, and a long record of failures. Private, local giving should be encouraged more.

Giving should be encouraged more, and the rich should do more to help the poor, rather than being taxed higher, and people should take care of themselves.

But the government cannot rely on generosity when millions of people need that money to live, and the rich cannot be relied upon to do anything except make more money, and hold on to what they have. In my experience the poorest people are the most generous.

And most importantly, while the poor black folks would have loved to be more reliant on themselves and the community, rather than the government, to get them to safety, when they are too poor to buy bottled water, never mind own a car, how the hell are they supposed to mount a relief effort or evacuation? if their wages can only stretch to buy just enough food till the next pay day, how are they supposed to store supplies?

Perhaps people could be more self reliant if the government raised minimum wage by a reasonable amount, like 50%, or whatever is enough for a family to survive with each member working only 50 hours a week, and cut income tax, at least for the lowest paid.

and give people money instead of foodstamps and school vouchers and healthcare cards and shit. or just cut the taxes that pay for these things.

Perhaps people could be more self reliant if the government raised minimum wage by a reasonable amount, like 50%, or whatever is enough for a family to survive with each member working only 50 hours a week, and cut income tax, at least for the lowest paid.

and give people money instead of foodstamps and school vouchers and healthcare cards and shit. or just cut the taxes that pay for these things.

I'm not sure I support raising the minimum wage. As long as there are people in the world willing to work for less the the current minimum wage, then raising the minimum wage will just ship jobs elsewhere.

If someone can't afford to live on their present wage... they need more training. I'd rather encourage more on the job training, or night school, or whatnot. There are nations without infrastructure where people have little choice but to work for pennies. In a 1st world nation virtually everyone can get a better job if they apply themselves to training.

Trace amount of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION are what we call, weapons. The trace negates the mass.

I think I'll reject your challenge :)
Actually, WMD are defined by what they are, not how much of them there are. And, of course, you reject my challenge. Because only a complete idiot would assume that you could find said grains of sand. And yet, replace the timeline with the war, the sandboxes with Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon, the fire ants with the terrorists and insurgents, and the tweezers with the people looking for WMD, and suddenly you think it's certain that we should have found the sand grains. What does that say about your reasoning abilities?

Actually, WMD are defined by what they are, not how much of them there are. And, of course, you reject my challenge. Because only a complete idiot would assume that you could find said grains of sand. And yet, replace the timeline with the war, the sandboxes with Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon, the fire ants with the terrorists and insurgents, and the tweezers with the people looking for WMD, and suddenly you think it's certain that we should have found the sand grains. What does that say about your reasoning abilities?

I like that definition. Why don't we just define everything by what it is? Oh that's right, we are forced to use words to define things! Mass is a measure of how much silly. What do you think the word Mass in WMD signifies?

We didn't find WMD's because we never expected to find WMD's. There was no credible evidence that Saddam still had WMD's, and we knew it. There was uncredible evidence, and that was all it took to justify the war. There is a reason so many members of the US intelligence agencies resigned in protest, they didn't like the way bad intelligence was promoted for political purposes, and the way politically inconvenient intelligence was shelved.

I like that definition. Why don't we just define everything by what it is? Oh that's right, we are forced to use words to define things! Mass is a measure of how much silly. What do you think the word Mass in WMD signifies?

We didn't find WMD's because we never expected to find WMD's. There was no credible evidence that Saddam still had WMD's, and we knew it. There was uncredible evidence, and that was all it took to justify the war. There is a reason so many members of the US intelligence agencies resigned in protest, they didn't like the way bad intelligence was promoted for political purposes, and the way politically inconvenient intelligence was shelved.


UMMMM. This thread seems to have been gravedug SOLELY to talk about something COMPLETELY unrelated to the OP.

Which is probably the crux of our disagreement - I believe firmly in Reagan's famous quote: " "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." " And more to the point: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Well, that's certainly true when run by people like Reagan. Problem is, we need a government. If you want small government, all you have to do is undo the policies of Reagan. Take away Congress' credit card. Government automatically shrinks when services require a tax hike. If the government can just borrow then government grows like mold on an uncleaned shower curtain.

The whole idea of "vote for politicians who don't believe in government" is absurd. I may believe in environmentalism, but when my car breaks down I'm not going to bring it to someone from Greenpeace, nor will I bring it to the Amish. I'm going to bring it to a mechanic. Preferably one who drives an American gas-guzzler, because he's going to know how to make it work.

Government more often is the problem, rather than the problem-solver, which is why I believe in the smallest government that is practically possible.

Like I said. Stop voting for these CONservatives with no fiscal discipline.

I submit to you that the government's abysmal performance during the Katrina debacle would have occurred under any administration, because "there are too many checks and balances thrown in to be truly efficient", as you said.

No, it wouldn't. FEMA worked under Clinton. Because Bush doesn't believe in government he set to work dismantling FEMA almost as soon as he got into office. It was like a car maintained by an Amish man who figures "why use an engine, you can just hitch the car to a horse?"

A large percentage of the populace lived at or close to the poverty line, who were thus used to relying on the government for welfare, foodstamps, etc., and their government failed them. While I would certainly not blame any of the Katrina victims, I believe the crisis could have been lessened if more folks had relied on themselves rather than the government, who promised but did not deliver, to get them out.

Poor, but they weren't indegent. It's the corporate interests who want those government subisdies. If the government buys people their food then the bosses don't have to raise wages to pay for it. Just take a look at Walmarts wage practices. They charge more for health coverage than their employees can afford, but they offer them free help in applying for welfare.

I was actually encouraged when I saw recently in the news that African-Americans are now more distrustful of the government since Katrina. Good - everyone should be more reliant on themselves and their local communities, rather than on nameless, faceless government entities.

You think African American's ever trusted the government? No wonder you believe in Reaganism.

The supposed War on Poverty was started by LBJ almost 50 years ago. The government has had its chance, and a long record of failures. Private, local giving should be encouraged more.

You're trying to create a cause-and-effect relationship out of a correlation. i.e. you've got it backwards. When poverty increases, policies arise to respond to it. When it diminishes, those policies fade away. While the wall street craze of the 80's is much touted as an economic boom, in truth there was a catastrophic impact on the lower end of the economic strata due to Reagan's policies. Remember, crack became an epedemic when Reagan was in office, not Carter.

And people said Communism doesn't work...

UMMMM. This thread seems to have been gravedug SOLELY to talk about something COMPLETELY unrelated to the OP.

How do you figure? Having just reread the original post the topic seems pretty broad.

How do you figure? Having just reread the original post the topic seems pretty broad.

Kind of a stretch to go from poor people to WMD.

Kind of a stretch to go from poor people to WMD.

If you say so. The premise of the OP post is that Republicans dont' care about poor people. It would seem to me to be within the topic to guess what they do care about. I keep hoping they care about more then getting reelected and giving their friends cushy jobs. I'm sure some of them do, but they don't seem to be in power right now.

What's wrong with taking a dead thread in General off topic? I never quite understood why we have off topic police, let alone in General.

I like that definition. Why don't we just define everything by what it is? Oh that's right, we are forced to use words to define things! Mass is a measure of how much silly. What do you think the word Mass in WMD signifies?


I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.

Um...if you're not...well...just remember that you don't just use "words to definte things" - words are part of a "greater being" called a phrase. Mass happens to modify "destruction," not "weapons" last time I checked.

If, as you say, "Mass is a measure of how much," then we would be looking for "Massive amounts of Destructive Weapons" not "Weapons that Cause Mass Destruction."

"Destructive Weapons" sounds a bit redundant to me in any case.

Yes, let me have my bit of fun at your expense. Please ;)

Maeneonne']I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.

Um...if you're not...well...just remember that you don't just use "words to definte things" - words are part of a "greater being" called a phrase. Mass happens to modify "destruction," not "weapons" last time I checked.

If, as you say, "Mass is a measure of how much," then we would be looking for "Massive amounts of Destructive Weapons" not "Weapons that Cause Mass Destruction."

"Destructive Weapons" sounds a bit redundant to me in any case.

Yes, let me have my bit of fun at your expense. Please ;)

Please try to do so :)

Lets say you have a pile of weapons of mass destruction. And then you take a miniscule part of it. What sort of destruction does this minuscule amount of weapons make? Are they still, weapons of mass destruction? No, they are weapons of minuscule destruction now.