Lucky...

This explains volumes. Paranoia transitioning into dellusion.

Truth is I post data instead of what my diddy taught me, etc. I take that as a compliment, thank you, you are unable to answer my posts.

That's it, a non-random sample size of 1; I'm convinced. I say we line them up and shoot em. Hmmm, how can I make money from the poor....hmmmm? And then maybe you could loan-shark him; offer to lend him the money for the gas at 50% interest. Then maybe become his bookie. And tehn you won him.....sounds so.... I dunno....Republican. I think incarceration would have been better, you're such a nice guy for letting him off easy. Yours that told him he would never not be indebted to you. Why not give him a chance to buy your mower from you by paying you most of his income until it's paid off, taht way he feels he has a chance at ownership. Your example really defines conservative practice. They just keep you dragging along with little chance of autonomy. There's always an ownership in there somewhere.

So you're going to ignire that entire long response I made and reply with nothing; wwe get it, you agree that the Repubs / Conservs are incompassionate - it's not a newsflash. This sticks the last fork in it, you can't defend your position, so you resort to typos. WHat's next; syntax?

They're going to try to get it done ASAP, because they know that if they don't get it done before the 2010 elections it's never going to happen. That's part of it and Obama wants to raise taxes and probably get out of Iraq, he's been holding off until HC passes to avoid rocking teh boat. As well, you assume a Repub rebound in 2010. Maybe, but let's see. A lot of Repubs in teh senate are up and they've already started jumping ship, so the spread could get worse. And when peopel start to enjoy HC it could be curtains for the R's.

Hm. Logically, that means that moderates want to give hand jobs.

Or, the left using data to explain how the right has given the country to corporations.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Failures?

So let's look at your process. Deny them coverage for chronic illnesses, support Republican corporate practices that pre-existing conditions be denied, and generally deny poor people any welfare as way of making them tough; is that your process? I say provide them care and education to better themselves, you say ignire them and see if they can oull a rabbit out of their hat. To wait for the charity to roll in isn't structured, and the collector's of that charity can decide who gets it and for waht. To have gov progs and guidelines set up that are foreeable is the most efficient way. No, that's communism. Socialism is when the means of production is controilled by teh people. BTW, the VN, IRAQ and other wars ensued long after poularity fell, so don't think this is a new process where teh gov does things that some dislike. What about slavery? Didn't they expand it to include Medicare, Medicaid? It will run out as the population ages and they'll have to find a way to refund it. Well it was LBJ who signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act that made sounthern hillbillies realize tehy hated blacks more than they hate city slickers so tehy switched parties and became known as the Yellow Dog Dems. Are you saying minorities haven't risen? Yep, esp fiscal; the Dems has as of late esp been the saviors. Sure, shall we talk neo-con economics?

I find it ridiculous when people write that. The dictionary defines it as I did: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. Being 94th at wealth distribution in the world and trying allocate government funds to ensure all have HC is not the same as robbing a country 1/2 way around the world and redistributing it. Are you that desperate fo an abstract example? And there inlies my point: Saudi has no duty to Africa, this country has a basic duty to its people for basic welfare and you disagree, defining my position that conservatives are incompassionate toward American poor people.

If ya listen to the words it defines the US. Perhaps he can do one next entitled: The US; 94th in Distribution of Wealth.

It was set to move quickly or slowly but let's be real, it's been going since he came into office and not much has been done even with his prodding, so let's be real, it has moved along slowly. Here's an example of slow-moving major legislation: NAFTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. It took just under a year from the meeting with GHWB to the signing into law. That was a multinational law, so if this HC takes a year, good.

What PA's, he was talking about Parties, congress, agendas, etc.

I'll sponsor your citizenship You rock, dude!

I hear ya, I've had to spend on this overbuilt military all my life. Of course I'm posturing as you, there is no direct process where you or I pay for either. I guess compassion doesn't measure where the money comes from, just where it goes. Compassion is the hope, the desire to help regardless of ability or origin, but just the destity of the aid. With your logic, an indigent person could not be compassionate. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Compassion a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. So does the definition really describe the origin of the help, or the desire? I wrote the above and edited this in. I nailed it pretty closely. Conservatives seem to worry more about, "fair" or their definition of it rather than compassion. I think we can define conservatives as incompassionate.

I posted that a while back, it is cool tho, keep her going.

People w/preexisting conditions, handicapped people, undereducated, uneducated, low-income people,etc..... You've made your point, you and your party simply don't care about poor people. Your way of ignoring the needs of people in a bad way. WHy not address the question? I nailed it, all for the military, none for social svs; fuck poor people - we hear ya. Reagan and GWB are responsible for that in the way of tax cuts and military spending. GWHB and Clinton raised taxes and sharply cut the military which is how we got into the 12T debt we are. Under Clinton that mess was terminated, which was setup by GHWB's tax increases and spending cuts. Can you really argue that? As Clinton took office it took $1.28 Canadian to buy $1 US. As he left it was $1.55 Canadian to buy $1 US. Under GWB the US Dollar fell below the Candian dollar a year before he left, then when the market crashed people pulled out and stuck it in bonds which gave him a little bump to $1.20ish. Still, even with the bump, under Clinton with tax increases the US Dollar gained considerable value, so once again your point is your personal rhetoric rather than fact. Are you saying that HC was never a problem? I'd say as Fascist Pig Ronnie came in and sucked corporations is when HC became an issue. Are you really that unable to answer the question that you have to use personal attacks? Giving more choices isn't an infringement, abridging choices is. I'm not trying to tell you how to live or which HC to use. You are to me. If you cannot afford HC, you are denied it. Try calling a doctor or hospital and see what they say when you want to go there w/o cash or ins. YOU GET DENIED. And being sick w/o money to afford HC is irresponsible? WHat of you lose your job, your career dissolves, etc, etc....? Is that irresponsible? See, Sarah Palin, corner you and you run. WE GET IT, REPUBLICANS ARE AS COMPASSIONATE AS THE GARDEN VARIETY SERIAL KILLER. And again, you're stuck so you cut-n-run. Answer the above question. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN TAX OUTLAYS AND TAX REVENUE OTHER THAN AN INDIRECT JUNCTION AT THE DEBT / DEFICIT, and that is very indirect. How is it compassion overboosting a military that is not needed at its level and spends 8 times that of the #2 spender while there are homeless and other issues? See, you just can't bring yourself to say, 'FUCK THE POOR' BUT WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN. THANK YOU, I WILL SAY YOU HAVE CHARACTER IN THE AREA OF HONESTY, AT LEAST WITH THIS QUESTION. LET'S JUST TAKE THIS PARTIAL QUOTE FROM YOU...... yEP. I don't want to give away anyone's money, just to establish gov progs. Furthermore, I will be thinking of you when the HC Bill passes. Reconcilliation, here we come. And in teh list of things you won't do, connect how taxation and spending outlays are in any way connected.

Good, because I don't understand that. BTW, you use one-liners and answer questions other than that of which was asked because that is your protocol. Remember Palin during the debates? She was constantly answering different question than that of which she was asked; remember? Of course not. Liberals want to ensure economic security and HC. Conservatives want to give sub-minimum wage jobs to illegals. If ya don't think so, then answer why Reagan gave them all amnesty in 1986. Then perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, explain how the unemployment rate over the last 28 years, actually longer but it's a good refrence point, why is it that the unemp rate has been faaar higher with an R in office than in times when a D has been in office. See, your points just fall thru when a GD liberal comes along and drops data on you. BTW, just ask and I will provide a link. Then explain how during the Great Depression, as it kicked off, Hoover lowered taxes and the GD slipped deeper into unemployment and total hazzard. Then at the end of Hoover's term, he realized he fucked up after unemployment was 25% and raised taxes, FDR did too and the unemployment rate dropped every year from 1933 thru the war with the exception of 1937-38 when there was a mid-reecovery recession. Then explain how during the Reagan years we had the highest unemp rate since the GD at 10.8%....BTW, he cut taxes too, incredibly. Then as GWB entered office he cut taxes and shed the most jobs in some time. Also, explain how Clinton inherited 7% unemployment, sharply raised taxes and then dropped the debt increase to virtually level, took a 290B deficit that turned to a 236B surplus 8 years later and unemployment was left at 4%. I know, I know, you will find something else to talk about. BTW, if anyone wants a data reference for any/all of this, LMK. Yes, we're guilty of unfucking the R mess, as stated above. See, listen to your rhetoric, I post historically accurate facts and you post some BS about weak-kneed liberals this and tough Republican that. Try posting some factual data (unemp, debt, deficit, etc) unless that is hard to do to support your position. And even that, tuition at my local univ at least doubled, so you can't even teach a man to fish w/o dropping the bank while under Republican rule. Nice cliches, address ALL of the data.

Another rightwing site, why not post data from objective sites? Are you one of these guys screaming "FOUL" when we post Moveon,org? Quit posting biased rhetoric and pushing it off as anything important. I didn't see data in there, just drivel. As well, charitability is more than just a check to the Red Cross, it's comprehensive to all areas that further the well-being of the country. You posted: Liberal Kristof Admits Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals The article stated: Firstly, Kristof isn't data, he's a nobel peace prize winning liberal person with an opinion. Secondly he states: Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. His point is that Liberals are for government-run programs, not that liberals don't want to help. I tend to agree, many of the rich Repubs will doante for a variety of reasons, but they definatley want their write-off. To trust the rich to keep the needy well is idiocy. http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf This article supports that the GOPers give more, of course > 1/3 of all donations go to churches. The point Kristof made was that GOPers give more, but I also think he would agree that relying on the compassion of the rich to donate for a nice tax writeoff rather than legislating that care so the government is compelled to keep helping needy people undermines the real requirement.

Talk about internal confusion, being Republican they would want to cut all social progs they could, but wanting your kids to get help yoiu need to open them up. I say open them up, cut the military in 1/2 and let's become a + nation.

OK, these are your ideals, I asked for Republican ideals in referencce to people's welfare; looks like they're one in the same. Also, it would take you longer to cut-n-paste those than to simply explain how the Repub/Conservative protocol is compassionate to people. I see you agree; THEY'RE NOT. So it's all about military expenditures and not about the well-being of people and health of a nation? I see we agree that conc=servative values are such as this. You make the assumption that enhancingg the welfare of peopel would throw a big deficit into the country. Explain how Canada is beating our dollar, has been since GWB, yet they afford uni-care. HINT: I won't wait up late till your drinking session is over. Right and when many work and cannot afford HC and / or the deductables, etc, that working man cannot exist with HC. So Viet Nam vets, Gulf War vets that have some/no limbs, etc are just being drug along and further injured by the "charity" that is extended. Furthermore, HC can bring people to work as they have higher quality of their lives. And this describes how Republicans are compassionate exactly how? And I chose to be born to millionaires....So quit forcing your decision to be unlike the rest of teh world and let's establish uni-care. Just because it is and has been the norm to deny HC doesn't mean it is the standard, it is not. Remember, salvery was once the norm. And this describes how Republicans are compassionate exactly how? Right and the Repiblican Party has orchestrated some pretty good Ponzi schemes.....er was that just a coincidence? And this describes how Republicans are compassionate exactly how? Capitalism just means the market controls the means of production, the market is controlled by the elite, so this addresses this post in no way. 1) I don't want your bonus points. 2) John D. Rockefeller You don't say, which explains why you skirted the question of how Republicans/COnservatives are compassionate to needy people. Rockefeller, now there's a neo-fascist leader we can follow; give the rich everything - fuck the poor. AGAIN, YOU BASICALLY HAVE TOLD ME THAT CONSERVTAIVES DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE DISADVANTAGED, BUT WHY NOT JUST ADMIT IT?

Yea, shame you're unable to actually respond; I'm looking for a good counterargument. Oh you mean take the bait? Paranoid, aren't we? No, just explain how the Republican Party is so much more compassionate to people in need. I'mnot trying to limit your scope, you want to tell me how they coddle the rich, I won't argue. Just show me the ways that the R Party takes care of needy people.

Yea, shame you're unable to actually respond; I'm looking for a good counterargument.

You're just proving his point. Please, continue. And you're just cheerleading and/or adding nothing important. Repubs don't care about people in need, is that rerally up for consideration? Or is it that the Rpubs want to pave the way so once the indigent become millionaires then they will have a low tax base from which to operate? So you casting the entire party as uncaring, evil, etc.. is important? It's not "cheerleading"? Do you ever go back and read what you write? I'm really casting the general Replican ideology of cutting taxes, cutting social svs, pumping military spending as the devil.....the Republicans just seem to embrace that ideology. Instead of creating an ad hominem, explain to me how the Republican / conservative stance on people's welfare can be interpreted as humane and caring.

If you look I think GHWB did a great job BASED UPON HIS ACTS, so I'm not being partisan when I interpet that MOST of the mess has been created by Republicans due to both their tax cuts and their overspending. There is a slight defection from the normal Republican tax cutting and overspending, but let's be real, is there a trend based upon parties over the last 28 years? Who's continuing actions? The 3 partisan runs of presidencies when this mess started, 1981, were the - Reagan/GHWB run - The Clinton run - The GWB run. The Reagan / GHWB run elevated the debt from 900B to about 4T. This run inherited an economy in recession that had high interest rates, but a stable debt/deficit. 12 straight years of 250B/yr debt increase left a 290B dollar annual deficit too. The Clinton run inherited a 290B annual deficit and 12 years of 250B/yr debt incr, the economy was slow and just recovering from a recession. Clinton left this economy in pretty good shape, a 236B surplus and the debt climb slowed every year to 1/9th of what he inherited it at, his last year had a 33B debt incr. GWB inherited a descent economy, 236B surplus and a very slight debt increae; very manageable. He immediately gave away the suplrus, cut taxes for teh rich, blew spending out and all in the face of a long-running war he CHOSE to enter into. He left a mess, an average of 625B/yr average debt increase for 8 years, a > 1 Trillion annual deficit, massive unemployment and an overall thrashed economy. SP to be partisan is to interpret the data prima facia. The one bright spot for the Republcians is GHWB and few congress members. Please, show me how the Republican ideology of cut tax and overspend isn't the culprit.