Theres just no other way to say it.....

christiefan915 said:
Chart.png
Click to expand...

If you demand the taxpayers provide you with thing you should be providing yourself, that's unwilling.
 
CFM said:
Do you believe taxpayers should be forced to support a single mother and her kids after being told by that mother that what she does with her body is no one else's business?
Click to expand...

You seem to have real issues with single mothers.

"It is neither true that single mothers are largely unemployed people who subsist solely on government payouts, nor that married women are generally housewives who depend on their husbands to take care of all their financial needs. Conservatives may wish to believe that there are two kinds of women, those who depend on “government” and those who depend on husbands, but in the real world, most women, regardless of marital status, actually have paid employment that is for more than just pin money ...

It is also asinine to assume that marriage is an institution that women resist and have to be forced into by making it impossible for them to feed themselves or their children without a man to provide....

...single women are usually single not because they are taking some kind of government-subsidized stand against being with a man, but because they don’t have a good man right now to be married to. The fantasy of widespread female rejection of monogamous commitment is pure right-wing paranoia that has nothing to do with women’s real lives...

...by far the largest group of recipients, with money sent to them directly by checks, is not, as conservatives assume, single mothers. No, 53 percent of direct cash entitlements go to people over 65 years old. Another 20 percent goes to disabled people and another 18 percent to working people, leaving only 9 percent for non-disabled, non-working people that conservatives like to pretend make up the bulk of recipients of social spending...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rs-are-not-america-s-real-welfare-queens.html
 
christiefan915 said:
You seem to have real issues with single mothers.

"It is neither true that single mothers are largely unemployed people who subsist solely on government payouts, nor that married women are generally housewives who depend on their husbands to take care of all their financial needs. Conservatives may wish to believe that there are two kinds of women, those who depend on “government” and those who depend on husbands, but in the real world, most women, regardless of marital status, actually have paid employment that is for more than just pin money ...

It is also asinine to assume that marriage is an institution that women resist and have to be forced into by making it impossible for them to feed themselves or their children without a man to provide....

...single women are usually single not because they are taking some kind of government-subsidized stand against being with a man, but because they don’t have a good man right now to be married to. The fantasy of widespread female rejection of monogamous commitment is pure right-wing paranoia that has nothing to do with women’s real lives...

...by far the largest group of recipients, with money sent to them directly by checks, is not, as conservatives assume, single mothers. No, 53 percent of direct cash entitlements go to people over 65 years old. Another 20 percent goes to disabled people and another 18 percent to working people, leaving only 9 percent for non-disabled, non-working people that conservatives like to pretend make up the bulk of recipients of social spending...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rs-are-not-america-s-real-welfare-queens.html
Click to expand...

Just those that expect the taxpayers to support the results of what they said was no one else's business when they made a choice to have them. If a single mother is supporting her kids, no one knows otherwise. When a single mother demands taxpayers fulfill HER responsibility as a parent, damn right I have a problem with it.

Your quote means nothing. I never made any of the statements attributed to conservatives in that quote.

I don't give a shit if the percent of non disabled, non working people getting handouts is 1%. That's 1% too much. No one owes them a dime.
 
CFM said:
In my State, one of those southern ones you referenced, Trump is leading by more than 16 percentage points in a Real Clear Politics average of three separate polls. I also looked at the neighboring states to the north and south of mine. In both of those, also states that you would consider evangelical states, while the percentage isn't as high, it's in the 10% range.
Click to expand...

Link up to these polls, please.
 
Legion Troll said:
Link up to the post containing this "proof".




My boy? Who's that?



You think I make you look intelligent?
Click to expand...


Already have, if you don't know who your boy is I can't help you, and you couldn't make a shit pile such as yourself look intelligent. You're worthless to anyone that matters.
 
CFM said:
When someone supports the idea that the taxpayers should provide to him/her what he/she should be providing themselves, that is unwilling to do for yourself. When someone demands taxpayers provide them a means with which to buy food, pay rent, purchase clothes, feed their kids, etc., that's an indication of unwillingness to do for yourself. What's worse is those doing the demanding aren't paying the taxes that fund what they demand. When someone supports the concept of having taxpayers provide to their kids in the way of tuition what they are unwilling to do for their own kids, that's demanding. It's not a generalization when it occurs on such a wide scale.
Click to expand...



nothing but republican ass juice mouth swill


that is based on hate of your fellow man and not facts you evil racist sociopath
 
evince said:
nothing but republican ass juice mouth swill


that is based on hate of your fellow man and not facts you evil racist sociopath
Click to expand...

Nothing but bleeding heart nonsense.

You claim you care for those who can't afford to support themselves so much. Why don't you voluntarily give them your money. That's right. That's not how bleeding hearts work. You think compassion and charity involves seeing how much you can get the government to force someone else to pay then take credit for it as if it came from you.

I despise anyone who thinks someone owes them something.

I don't the kid of another person a college education. If their own parents won't do it, not my problem. I don't owe anyone food, clothing, and shelter. If they aren't willing to provide it to themselves, not my problem.

In case you didn't know, people expecting others to do for them what they won't do for themselves is a demand. My response to their demands is shit in one hand, demand in the other, and see which one fills up first. There's a good idea. They can eat the shit that fills their hand up for demanding someone else support them.
 
CFM said:
I fit the definition. I'm honorable, chivalrous, and courteous. When you don't deserve the treatment of a gentleman or a lady, don't be shocked when people treat you that way.

I'm not the one lying and covering up dishonorable things I've done. That's because I don't have to since I don't do dishonorable things.
Click to expand...

An idealised, American version, and far be it from me to comment on whether you come over so. Over here a gentleman is defined by class and education mainly, especially the way he speaks. I have to fight hard to escape the category, but retain the habits my friends find comical. 'Chauvinistic sod!' say my female comrades when I hold the door open for them, but they do smile as they say it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top