(12-28-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I always find it funny when I see liberals expose their blatant racism, I.e. thinking blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID.

They deny it..but..It is the absolute truth. In fact.. Liberals are the worst kind of racists because they have no clue that they are. These do-gooders actually think that helping blacks by giving them everything.. is supporting them. In fact..it just enslaves them in their Socialist system.

Of course there are exceptions but the GOP leaders know there aren't very many conservative poor and minorities. That's the point. They can pass a law that has a disparate impact on poor people, but the Voting Rights Act prevents laws that have a disparate impact on minorities. As the South Carolina study showed, minorities are 20% less likely to carry a photo ID.

(12-28-2011 03:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I always find it funny when I see liberals expose their blatant racism, I.e. thinking blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID.

They deny it..but..It is the absolute truth. In fact.. Liberals are the worst kind of racists because they have no clue that they are. These do-gooders actually think that helping blacks by giving them everything.. is supporting them. In fact..it just enslaves them in their Socialist system.

And you conservatives actually buy into the Orwellian notion that by not giving poor people anything you are helping them. 1 + 1 = 3

(12-28-2011 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 03:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I always find it funny when I see liberals expose their blatant racism, I.e. thinking blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID.

They deny it..but..It is the absolute truth. In fact.. Liberals are the worst kind of racists because they have no clue that they are. These do-gooders actually think that helping blacks by giving them everything.. is supporting them. In fact..it just enslaves them in their Socialist system.

And you conservatives actually buy into the Orwellian notion that by not giving poor people anything you are helping them. 1 + 1 = 3

Most certainly.

Quote:I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ---Benjamin Franklin

The "war on poverty" is as successful as the "war on drugs". You libs have literally wasted hundreds of billions, if not a trillion or two, for nothing and you've turned around and enslaved generations of people for no other reason than a damn vote.

We "enslave" people by giving them shelter, food and health care? LOL

And you would give them the "freedom" and "liberty" to decide which street corner they want to die on?

(12-28-2011 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 03:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I always find it funny when I see liberals expose their blatant racism, I.e. thinking blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID.

They deny it..but..It is the absolute truth. In fact.. Liberals are the worst kind of racists because they have no clue that they are. These do-gooders actually think that helping blacks by giving them everything.. is supporting them. In fact..it just enslaves them in their Socialist system.

And you conservatives actually buy into the Orwellian notion that by not giving poor people anything you are helping them. 1 + 1 = 3

Yes. I believe private charity does a better job in helping the poor and statics prove that in the ratio of returned dollars to those in need. They actually have an incentive to serve and help them return to being productive citizens. Governmental social programs are incentivized to KEEP people on assistance. Their jobs are at stake. Most of the funding goes to bureaucrats salaries..not helping people.

Just for clarity. I have no problem with government helping those who can not help themselves and are in ACTUAL need. I would submit that the VAST majority of those on assistance do not fit into this category and are simply moochers.

(12-28-2011 03:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  We "enslave" people by giving them shelter, food and health care? LOL

And you would give them the "freedom" and "liberty" to decide which street corner they want to die on?

Yes...If they are able bodied...Id give them the shovel to dig their grave.

I have no problem with helping people in REAL need. We both know that is the exception to the rule when it comes to governmental programs.

The government had to step in in the first place because private charity can't be counted on to help all the poor.

(12-28-2011 03:36 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The government had to step in in the first place because private charity can't be counted on to help all the poor.

How's all that government welfare worked out so far? It was never meant to be about helping out the poor. It was a vote buying program that included the systematic destruction of one of the strongest family structures in the nation, now THE worst in the damn nation. The Great Society wasn't so great.

(12-28-2011 03:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  We "enslave" people by giving them shelter, food and health care? LOL

And you would give them the "freedom" and "liberty" to decide which street corner they want to die on?

Meeting all of their needs has turned them into Pets... I give my dog food, shelter, health care, and training yet he is still a pet and no he is not free.

I say this not to dismiss the possibility that welfare might help, but your argument trying to demonstrate that is flawed.

Few here, even the most libertarian, would argue against any sensible food relief for destitute peoples but..

If I quit my job and moved my family into a three bedroom 750$ month apartment I would qualify for nearly 800$ a month in food stamps.... 800$!

Now with two school age kids and one nursing child that would mean I need to provide breakfast and dinner to two children and two adults 7 times a week and a lunch twice. Then five lunches for two adults and two lunches for four..

26 meals for 800$ or 30$ a meal! When you consider that a solid breakfast can be put together for a buck (one egg, a slice of bacon, a glass of milk, and a piece of fruit)... Those dinners can be NICE!

When a box of six steaks went on sale for 10$ at the local supermarket I nearly sped to get them because, well that about the only price at which I can afford to eat steak.

Now what is *really* funny is that when the state tried to clamp down on things like Junk food poverty advocates started talking about 'rights'..

Pets??? Really? Yes both poor people on assistance and pets are given the basic necessities but beyond that........... ????

I'm not opposed to reform efforts if the system is being abused or too much is being paid out; I just have a problem with the apparent suggestion that we should axe the system.

Also, how is this "vote buying" (by promising assistance to those who need it) any different from GOPers who promise the rich big tax cuts and the corporations cuts to regulations???

(12-28-2011 04:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Pets??? Really? Yes both poor people on assistance and pets are given the basic necessities but beyond that........... ????

Just making a point... When you throw a rock the dog the squeals is the dog you hit.. You said that giving people all these things made them 'free', material needs do not provide freedom...

Quote:I'm not opposed to reform efforts if the system is being abused or too much is being paid out; I just have a problem with the apparent suggestion that we should axe the system.

The quote from Franklin was about giving less, not giving nothing! Liberals have trouble distinguishing between those concepts.

Quote:Also, how is this "vote buying" (by promising assistance to those who need it) any different from GOPers who promise the rich big tax cuts and the corporations cuts to regulations???

Well in one instance you are 'buying a vote' by letting people keep what they earn and in the other you are 'buying a vote' by taking from one and giving to the other.

Not that I think the GOP focus on cutting taxes is healthy mind you. I would much rather the party leave taxes where they are and focus on shrinking government.

(12-28-2011 04:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Also, how is this "vote buying" (by promising assistance to those who need it) any different from GOPers who promise the rich big tax cuts and the corporations cuts to regulations???

Corporations don't show up at voting booths. Also, how the hell is a "tax cut" a bought vote? It's allowing people to keep more of their earned income.

You libs, can't seem to understand simple logic.

Max,

For instance...

I think someone who is poor should be allowed to head to a local government building (maybe some agency can rent space from the post office) and pick up a box that includes the very, very, basic dietary necessities..

Cereal, a carton of eggs, a liter of milk, a bag of chicken breast, some canned vegetables, and whatever fruit is in season.

You could put the box together for at most 40$ and the system would be far less easy to game.

Quote:You said that giving people all these things made them 'free', material needs do not provide freedom...

I didn't say that. It may though give them the freedom to live longer and live healthier. I suppose those are freedoms.

Quote:The quote from Franklin was about giving less, not giving nothing! Liberals have trouble distinguishing between those concepts.

Well I wasn't necessarily responding to that quote but let's have at it.....

Quote:And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ---Benjamin Franklin

Following to Mr. Franklin's logic, by giving them nothing, they'll do the most for themselves and become the richest! Hell, why stop at not giving them things? Let's take their meager possessions too--bike, backpack, eyeglasses. We're helping you!

Quote:Well in one instance you are 'buying a vote' by letting people keep what they earn and in the other you are 'buying a vote' by taking from one and giving to the other.

C'mon man!

It's the same end result. Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

(12-28-2011 04:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Max,

For instance...

I think someone who is poor should be allowed to head to a local government building (maybe some agency can rent space from the post office) and pick up a box that includes the very, very, basic dietary necessities..

Cereal, a carton of eggs, a liter of milk, a bag of chicken breast, some canned vegetables, and whatever fruit is in season.

You could put the box together for at most 40$ and the system would be far less easy to game.

But how do they get their pot and tall 40's?

(12-28-2011 04:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Max,

For instance...

I think someone who is poor should be allowed to head to a local government building (maybe some agency can rent space from the post office) and pick up a box that includes the very, very, basic dietary necessities..

Cereal, a carton of eggs, a liter of milk, a bag of chicken breast, some canned vegetables, and whatever fruit is in season.

You could put the box together for at most 40$ and the system would be far less easy to game.

I dunno, conservatives will scream about expanding government power and intrusion into private markets if we have the government start buying up farms to put all these "basic dietary necessity boxes" together!

I wouldn't have a problem with it in theory though, as long as it passes dietary guidelines.

(12-28-2011 04:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  C'mon man!

It's the same end result. Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

It's NOT the same damn thing. This is one of the biggest differences between you libs and conservatives. You libs are thieves with no morals.

(12-27-2011 02:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 02:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Of course the intent of the laws is to suppress voter participation, so there is no way righties would go for a plan that might actually get more people to vote.

And you have proof of that, right? If a person has ID then how is voter participation surpressed?

I've said this before, many of the millions of people in New York City don't have driver's licenses because they many never get behind the wheel of a car during their entire lives - yet they some how manage to vote, even the people in the projects.

Article on republican voter surpression form accross the pond.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...raud-fraud


One lawmaker pitched a hissy fit, claiming that dead actors (Paul Newman, for one) constantly turn up on voter rolls and that "Mickey Mouse" had registered to vote in Orlando. State senator Mike Bennett wants to make voting "harder"; after all, he said, "people in Africa literally walk 200 or 300 miles so they can have the opportunity to do what we do, and we want to make it more convenient? How much more convenient do you want to make it?"

Now here is some real vote fraud

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/22...-Vop-Osili

Best quote:

"Charlie White is a joke, the stupid moronic conservatives in Indiana knew this and elected him anyway. He also is still facing two felony charges of voter fraud. Yup, the morons elected someone charged with voter fraud to be the person in charge of watching out for voter fraud....."