|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 13, 2022 23:42:50 GMT
You’re worried about posts I make on LNF while 11 million children live in poverty checkmate u mad bro hahahahaha. Rolling on the floor pissing my pants laughing emoji. Nah, no way am I worried about your posts about anything. I just like to point out how you're blaming the wrong people for what you're whining about. But whiners gotta whine. So much whining you'll (meaning me) get tired of whining. And I'm there. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Dec 14, 2022 1:21:59 GMT
You’re worried about posts I make on LNF while 11 million children live in poverty checkmate u mad bro hahahahaha. Rolling on the floor pissing my pants laughing emoji. Nah, no way am I worried about your posts about anything. I just like to point out how you're blaming the wrong people for what you're whining about. But whiners gotta whine. So much whining you'll (meaning me) get tired of whining. And I'm there. You’re lost. I actually don’t blame you, but just move along. |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 1:29:50 GMT
Rolling on the floor pissing my pants laughing emoji. Nah, no way am I worried about your posts about anything. I just like to point out how you're blaming the wrong people for what you're whining about. But whiners gotta whine. So much whining you'll (meaning me) get tired of whining. And I'm there. You’re lost. I actually don’t blame you, but just move along. I can't help noticing that you don't respond to the fact that virtually all Republicans voted against what you whine about (the millions of American children living in poverty) yet you still support them. And I'm the one who's lost? I'm not confused about what I believe and support. Why are you? And why are you unable or unwiling to explain this? And don't call it fascinating. Because it is. Really |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 2:58:47 GMT
That is a sad commentary on Co voters in her district. She is an uneducated redneck married to a pedophile. Really? Y'all support drag queen strip shows for children but think a young guy doing some stupid shit while drunk is where to draw the line? To be clear, he's still an ass for doing it. But I'm against both and classify what he did as a little less bad than intentionally abusing children while stone cold sober and in public. That doesn't mean anything |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Dec 14, 2022 4:55:48 GMT
You’re worried about posts I make on LNF while 11 million children live in poverty checkmate u mad bro hahahahaha. OMG... How do you find time to worry about crap like that when there could be a Drag Queen reading Harry Potter to some kids.. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Dec 14, 2022 9:48:25 GMT
You’re lost. I actually don’t blame you, but just move along. I can't help noticing that you don't respond to the fact that virtually all Republicans voted against what you whine about (the millions of American children living in poverty) yet you still support them. And I'm the one who's lost? I'm not confused about what I believe and support. Why are you? And why are you unable or unwiling to explain this? And don't call it fascinating. Because it is. Really You come from the position that legislation and leftist proposals will cure childhood poverty. I reject that fully. I say to republicans frequently: If the GOP is truly the party of limited government, then they are the worst run and most failed organization of all time. It’s similar to the democrats: Given the political power the democrats have had over the last 100 years, if they are the party of ending poverty, then it is a failed organization. |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 13:31:37 GMT
I can't help noticing that you don't respond to the fact that virtually all Republicans voted against what you whine about (the millions of American children living in poverty) yet you still support them. And I'm the one who's lost? I'm not confused about what I believe and support. Why are you? And why are you unable or unwiling to explain this? And don't call it fascinating. Because it is. Really You come from the position that legislation and leftist proposals will cure childhood poverty. I reject that fully. I say to republicans frequently: If the GOP is truly the party of limited government, then they are the worst run and most failed organization of all time. It’s similar to the democrats: Given the political power the democrats have had over the last 100 years, if they are the party of ending poverty, then it is a failed organization. Yes, I do. I also come from the position that legislation and right wing proposals increase poverty. In the attached PDF, you can see in several data tables how the number of American citizens living in poverty increases during periods of Republican control of government; you can also see how it decreases during periods when Democrats are in control. I suspect you'll also fully reject the government data shown in the attachment. Limited government tends to increase poverty. Both of your last two statements can easily be refuted should you choose to peruse the attachment I give you. But I figure there's at least half a chance you'll bail out, eject, or just self destruct. aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Dec 14, 2022 13:49:02 GMT
That is a sad commentary on Co voters in her district. She is an uneducated redneck married to a pedophile. Really? Y'all support drag queen strip shows for children but think a young guy doing some stupid shit while drunk is where to draw the line? To be clear, he's still an ass for doing it. But I'm against both and classify what he did as a little less bad than intentionally abusing children while stone cold sober and in public. That doesn't mean anything He husband is, what we used to call "A whip out artist".... Greg |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Dec 14, 2022 13:59:19 GMT
You come from the position that legislation and leftist proposals will cure childhood poverty. I reject that fully. I say to republicans frequently: If the GOP is truly the party of limited government, then they are the worst run and most failed organization of all time. It’s similar to the democrats: Given the political power the democrats have had over the last 100 years, if they are the party of ending poverty, then it is a failed organization. Yes, I do. I also come from the position that legislation and right wing proposals increase poverty. In the attached PDF, you can see in several data tables how the number of American citizens living in poverty increases during periods of Republican control of government; you can also see how it decreases during periods when Democrats are in control. I suspect you'll also fully reject the government data shown in the attachment. Limited government tends to increase poverty. Both of your last two statements can easily be refuted should you choose to peruse the attachment I give you. But I figure there's at least half a chance you'll bail out, eject, or just self destruct. aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdfI imagine you're basing your "analysis" on whichever party happened to have the president at that exact moment of recession or economic boom? Ignoring the long-term impacts of economic decisions made. Ignoring that the Democrats controlled the House almost entirely unbroken from 1931 to 1994, and had majorities in the Senate for over 80% of that time as well. If "Limited government tends to increase poverty", then why has the poverty rate remained virtually unchanged for 50 years, when the US government is the most powerful government in world history? And did you forget the fact that I believe the Republicans are absolutely abysmal at actually succeeding in limiting government? And that their record is clear on this? |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 14:01:34 GMT
You are putting words in my mouth; but I do know that the right are the ones who began the war on education then played the victim card for those who are less educated. It is CB one thing to be uneducated and another to accept a job for which you are woefully unqualified. And… more still when you, after serving, show a dismal understanding of our basic tenets of government. Speaking of basic tenets of government, what were the qualifications outlined in the Constitution for serving in Congress? What makes you a snob is that you look down on someone who doesn't have a degree, as if that is what makes them less qualified or intelligent. I'm not familiar with the current policy, but when I was in the military, you couldn't be an officer without a college degree (this does not count those already in who rose in the ranks decades before and achieved officer rank). That means that the US military considers their officers to be unqualified unless they have a college degree. In my time, you could become a warrant officer without having a degree. Most of those guys were helicopter pilots. So, in government as well as in the private sector, education level is a big determining factor in how far you progress. Didn't you know that? Oh, yeah, some here have established the rumor that you were a Marine......never mind |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 14:11:50 GMT
Yes, I do. I also come from the position that legislation and right wing proposals increase poverty. In the attached PDF, you can see in several data tables how the number of American citizens living in poverty increases during periods of Republican control of government; you can also see how it decreases during periods when Democrats are in control. I suspect you'll also fully reject the government data shown in the attachment. Limited government tends to increase poverty. Both of your last two statements can easily be refuted should you choose to peruse the attachment I give you. But I figure there's at least half a chance you'll bail out, eject, or just self destruct. aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdfI imagine you're basing your "analysis" on whichever party happened to have the president at that exact moment of recession or economic boom? Ignoring the long-term impacts of economic decisions made. Ignoring that the Democrats controlled the House almost entirely unbroken from 1931 to 1994, and had majorities in the Senate for over 80% of that time as well. If "Limited government tends to increase poverty", then why has the poverty rate remained virtually unchanged for 50 years, when the US government is the most powerful government in world history? And did you forget the fact that I believe the Republicans are absolutely abysmal at actually succeeding in limiting government? And that their record is clear on this? I based it on the timelines and graphic info in the tables. It's quite clear. I'm fully aware of how economic policy and economic results do not change instantly. Just like a train can't stop or reach its cruising speed instantly. You need to look at the tables again. Percentage wise, poverty has been steadily decreasing (see page 8 in the PDF). Your support of limited government will increase what you've been whining about. If you're a pilot, would you advocate getting rrid of the FAA and just let Boeing and Delta decide on how pilots are qualified or how planes are maintained? Or let "mechanics" who may or may not know what the hell they're doing work on your plane? I suspect this aspect of "limited government" would result in a significant increase in plane crashes. A small price to pay |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,659
|
Post by thor on Dec 14, 2022 15:01:40 GMT
Report to Reply #14 for your bitch-slapping. Owned. Again.  That reply did not explain. You only owned yourself. Awwww...it wasn't written in crayon. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Dec 14, 2022 15:04:05 GMT
I imagine you're basing your "analysis" on whichever party happened to have the president at that exact moment of recession or economic boom? Ignoring the long-term impacts of economic decisions made. Ignoring that the Democrats controlled the House almost entirely unbroken from 1931 to 1994, and had majorities in the Senate for over 80% of that time as well. If "Limited government tends to increase poverty", then why has the poverty rate remained virtually unchanged for 50 years, when the US government is the most powerful government in world history? And did you forget the fact that I believe the Republicans are absolutely abysmal at actually succeeding in limiting government? And that their record is clear on this? I based it on the timelines and graphic info in the tables. It's quite clear. I'm fully aware of how economic policy and economic results do not change instantly. Just like a train can't stop or reach its cruising speed instantly. You need to look at the tables again. Percentage wise, poverty has been steadily decreasing (see page 8 in the PDF). Your support of limited government will increase what you've been whining about. If you're a pilot, would you advocate getting rrid of the FAA and just let Boeing and Delta decide on how pilots are qualified or how planes are maintained? Or let "mechanics" who may or may not know what the hell they're doing work on your plane? I suspect this aspect of "limited government" would result in a significant increase in plane crashes. A small price to pay Steadily decreasing? You mean the chart where it goes from 19% in 1964 to 11.1% in 1973? And then the most recent data in 2021, the rate is 11.6% according to the US Census Bureau? www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+americans+in+poverty&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS913US913&oq=percentage+of+americans+in+poverty&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l2.4028j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Is that the "steady decrease" you're referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 14, 2022 15:09:19 GMT
That reply did not explain. You only owned yourself. Awwww...it wasn't written in crayon. Thor, it was not written at all. You might think you are super clever in your own twisted brain, but all you mostly do here is jump into a thread and declare yourself or others a winner. The day you actually engage in any kind of thoughtful dialogue will be a miracle. |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 15:10:47 GMT
I based it on the timelines and graphic info in the tables. It's quite clear. I'm fully aware of how economic policy and economic results do not change instantly. Just like a train can't stop or reach its cruising speed instantly. You need to look at the tables again. Percentage wise, poverty has been steadily decreasing (see page 8 in the PDF). Your support of limited government will increase what you've been whining about. If you're a pilot, would you advocate getting rrid of the FAA and just let Boeing and Delta decide on how pilots are qualified or how planes are maintained? Or let "mechanics" who may or may not know what the hell they're doing work on your plane? I suspect this aspect of "limited government" would result in a significant increase in plane crashes. A small price to pay Steadily decreasing? You mean the chart where it goes from 19% in 1964 to 11.1% in 1973? And then the most recent data in 2021, the rate is 11.6% according to the US Census Bureau? www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+americans+in+poverty&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS913US913&oq=percentage+of+americans+in+poverty&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l2.4028j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Is that the "steady decrease" you're referring to? No. I am referring to the section "Poverty Fluctuates With Economic Cycles" on page 8 in my link. There are numerous other charts and graphs showing the same thing. Sure, there are temporary increases shown in some years but the overall trend is downward. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 14, 2022 15:12:27 GMT
Speaking of basic tenets of government, what were the qualifications outlined in the Constitution for serving in Congress? What makes you a snob is that you look down on someone who doesn't have a degree, as if that is what makes them less qualified or intelligent. I'm not familiar with the current policy, but when I was in the military, you couldn't be an officer without a college degree (this does not count those already in who rose in the ranks decades before and achieved officer rank). That means that the US military considers their officers to be unqualified unless they have a college degree. In my time, you could become a warrant officer without having a degree. Most of those guys were helicopter pilots. So, in government as well as in the private sector, education level is a big determining factor in how far you progress. Didn't you know that? Oh, yeah, some here have established the rumor that you were a Marine......never mind You must be in the wrong thread. We were talking about qualifications to be in Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Dec 14, 2022 15:15:41 GMT
I imagine you're basing your "analysis" on whichever party happened to have the president at that exact moment of recession or economic boom? Ignoring the long-term impacts of economic decisions made. Ignoring that the Democrats controlled the House almost entirely unbroken from 1931 to 1994, and had majorities in the Senate for over 80% of that time as well. If "Limited government tends to increase poverty", then why has the poverty rate remained virtually unchanged for 50 years, when the US government is the most powerful government in world history? And did you forget the fact that I believe the Republicans are absolutely abysmal at actually succeeding in limiting government? And that their record is clear on this? I based it on the timelines and graphic info in the tables. It's quite clear. I'm fully aware of how economic policy and economic results do not change instantly. Just like a train can't stop or reach its cruising speed instantly. You need to look at the tables again. Percentage wise, poverty has been steadily decreasing (see page 8 in the PDF). Your support of limited government will increase what you've been whining about. If you're a pilot, would you advocate getting rrid of the FAA and just let Boeing and Delta decide on how pilots are qualified or how planes are maintained? Or let "mechanics" who may or may not know what the hell they're doing work on your plane? I suspect this aspect of "limited government" would result in a significant increase in plane crashes. A small price to pay  What's clear is a precipitous drop Post-WWII until the late 1960s. And then we cycle from 11% to 15%, staying in that range for over 50 years. That's what is clear. You're welcome to provide some other chart. That's not a "steadily decreasing" trend. |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 15:18:49 GMT
I'm not familiar with the current policy, but when I was in the military, you couldn't be an officer without a college degree (this does not count those already in who rose in the ranks decades before and achieved officer rank). That means that the US military considers their officers to be unqualified unless they have a college degree. In my time, you could become a warrant officer without having a degree. Most of those guys were helicopter pilots. So, in government as well as in the private sector, education level is a big determining factor in how far you progress. Didn't you know that? Oh, yeah, some here have established the rumor that you were a Marine......never mind You must be in the wrong thread. We were talking about qualifications to be in Congress. No, I was just pointing out that it's very common that certain education levels are needed to be designated "qualified" in response to your whining about Boebert being technically qualified to serve (she's old enough, she's a citizen, she lives in the district) even though she's a dumbass. My post was in response to your ignorant allegation that education in itself does not make you "qualified" for anything. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,659
|
Post by thor on Dec 14, 2022 15:22:58 GMT
Awwww...it wasn't written in crayon. Thor, it was not written at all. You might think you are super clever in your own twisted brain, but all you mostly do here is jump into a thread and declare yourself or others a winner. The day you actually engage in any kind of thoughtful dialogue will be a miracle. Not competent enough to read? OK. Q: Why do Marines fire their weapons off the fantails of Navy ships? A: Because the water is the only thing they can hit. |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Dec 14, 2022 15:23:42 GMT
I based it on the timelines and graphic info in the tables. It's quite clear. I'm fully aware of how economic policy and economic results do not change instantly. Just like a train can't stop or reach its cruising speed instantly. You need to look at the tables again. Percentage wise, poverty has been steadily decreasing (see page 8 in the PDF). Your support of limited government will increase what you've been whining about. If you're a pilot, would you advocate getting rrid of the FAA and just let Boeing and Delta decide on how pilots are qualified or how planes are maintained? Or let "mechanics" who may or may not know what the hell they're doing work on your plane? I suspect this aspect of "limited government" would result in a significant increase in plane crashes. A small price to pay What's clear is a precipitous drop Post-WWII until the late 1960s. And then we cycle from 11% to 15%, staying in that range for over 50 years. That's what is clear. You're welcome to provide some other chart. That's not a "steadily decreasing" trend. My link I think covers 1967 to the present. Your chart also shows the same increases in the poverty rates in the periods 1980-90 and 2000-10 just as I previously noted.....that poverty goes up when Republicans are in charge. |
|
