• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

Like what? Most of what I saw was done by the community, churches, charities, etc. What are you calling welfare?

Today many places like homeless shelters recieve city funding rather than private funding.

Interesting article here:

Helping America's Homeless: CHAPTER ONE

Studies of skid row populations in the 1950s and 1960s (Bahr and Caplow 1974; Bogue 1963; Wiseman 1970) provided a different lens on homelessness. The situations they studied were different. These studies described a population, mostly of single men, who were housed, lived steadily in a particular part of a particular city, but lived by themselves. That is, they did not live with any family members although they clearly lived in hotel rooms with many other people on the same and adjacent floors. Very few men in these communities would have been classified as literally homeless by today’s formal government definition, yet they were considered homeless by the people who studied them. Even the U.S. Census Bureau, as late as the 1980 decennial census, identified people who lived by themselves and did not have a "usual home elsewhere" (i.e., with family) as "homeless." This way of thinking about homelessness reflects a cultural expectation that the "normal" way to live is in a family, and that something is wrong when people live by themselves. "Home" in this usage implies people, not physical shelter.
 
Howard Dean had me rolling on the floor this morning. Was that not hilarious? Even Mika was like "WTF".

Gruber really torpedoed Obama's signature legislation. It's only Howard Dean and some Liberal posters who think otherwise.

Obama's legacy legislation. The dems false profit.
 
I'm not jealous? I'm merely pointing out facts to you. :lamo:lamo:lamo

No you are pointing out your version of the facts and those of an op ed writer none of which are confirmed by BLS, Treasury, Census, or other economic sites
 
Today many places like homeless shelters recieve city funding rather than private funding.

Interesting article here:

Helping America's Homeless: CHAPTER ONE

Okay, a homeless shelter being paid for by a city, county for that matter with no federal government involved is not what I would refer to as welfare today. Churches and organizations like the Salvation Army also did stuff like that. It was local, a city doing what it thought was right. In town the city had set up a free clinic for the poor, staffed by volunteer doctors and nurses donating their time. But again no federal involvement. Was that welfare, I suppose it was. But it was regulated or run by the federal or even the state government. It was people doing what they thought was right on their own because that was what they wanted to do.

People would donate of their time, energy and money because they wanted to. Not to be taxed for this government program or that program. It was entirely voluntarily.
 
Money is a fiction. No use fighting over it.

Money merely represents resources. Your leftist delusion that people will not compete for these resources goes against human history and human nature in general. Its one reason why leftism does so poorly in reality-because it does not recognize reality.
 
My understanding is 2 appeal courts ruled in favor of going with what Democrat congressmen said they meant, not what they wrote and 1 appeal court ruled in favor of what the law actually said on paper and not what Democratic congressmen said they meant. So the split in the appeals courts means the SCOTUS will have to rule.

Interesting. The right leaning justices are decent at interpreting the law as it was written, while the left is much more "feely" about it. I wonder how that ruling would turn out, but the headlines keep coming about the ACA and it appears the "masterminds" (ha) of the bill actually intended to lie to the American people. Im wondering if this vote will break down along political lines.
 
Interesting. The right leaning justices are decent at interpreting the law as it was written, while the left is much more "feely" about it. I wonder how that ruling would turn out, but the headlines keep coming about the ACA and it appears the "masterminds" (ha) of the bill actually intended to lie to the American people. Im wondering if this vote will break down along political lines.

Oh I am sure it will.
 
People would donate of their time, energy and money because they wanted to. Not to be taxed for this government program or that program. It was entirely voluntarily.

Voluntary and virtuous. Today we are to believe the lefts premise that forcible redistribution of other peoples wealth is "generous" while wanting EVERYONE to keep what they earn is somehow "selfish". And in the end its the second group that ends up giving more (voluntarily), thats actually the virtuous choice, imo.
 
Voluntary and virtuous. Today we are to believe the lefts premise that forcible redistribution of other peoples wealth is "generous" while wanting EVERYONE to keep what they earn is somehow "selfish". And in the end its the second group that ends up giving more (voluntarily), thats actually the virtuous choice, imo.

Yes, and being helpful today isn't helping your neighbor rebuild his barn that was destroyed by a tornado. Or fixing supper for a neighbor that lost his job and the like, being helpful today means sending whomever is having problems down to the nearest government office.
 
Yes, and being helpful today isn't helping your neighbor rebuild his barn that was destroyed by a tornado. Or fixing supper for a neighbor that lost his job and the like, being helpful today means sending whomever is having problems down to the nearest government office.

How did we get here from there?
 
When FOX speaks, rage happens.

Does anyone who abides by this trend ever tire of it?
 
How did we get here from there?

that is the million dollar question. Perhaps when a lot of people decided they wanted government to be responsible for their well being instead of themselves. I really do not know.
 
Money merely represents resources. Your leftist delusion that people will not compete for these resources goes against human history and human nature in general. Its one reason why leftism does so poorly in reality-because it does not recognize reality.

Money represents debt, not "resources"
 
When did the electorate ever get a chance to vote for or against Obamacare? Even if it is a stupid electorate, it had nothing to do with the passage of the law. Some professors live on a different planet than the one I inhabit. Perhaps he should stick to economics. Politics is not his area of expertise.
 
When FOX speaks, rage happens.

Does anyone who abides by this trend ever tire of it?


Fox didn't call American voters idiots and didn't lie to get a disastrous health care law passed.

The Democrats, the President and one of the key architects did.

Do you people ever tire of defending low lifes ?
 
When FOX speaks, rage happens.

Does anyone who abides by this trend ever tire of it?
So, it's FNC's fault that a liberal putz got caught saying what you all believe?
 
When did the electorate ever get a chance to vote for or against Obamacare? Even if it is a stupid electorate, it had nothing to do with the passage of the law. Some professors live on a different planet than the one I inhabit. Perhaps he should stick to economics. Politics is not his area of expertise.
Apparently economics may give him a bit of trouble too.
 
When FOX speaks, rage happens.

Does anyone who abides by this trend ever tire of it?

Wish you had the same amount of outrage over the terrible economic and foreign policy results of Obama as you have with outrage over Fox. Someone has to give the Obama results and it happens to be Fox
 
Let's see here... Gruber said that Obamacare was basically sold to the public using smoke and mirrors, because they (Obama, the Administration and Democrats on Capitol Hil) knew that the voting public was too stupid to know they were being lied to. Now since not one republican voted for Obamacare, and the conservatives and republican voters across America saw through the BS right from the start and very vocally opposed the passage of the bill, what specific voters do you think Obama and the democrats thought were too stupid to know any better?

You really should have given this entire situation a bit more thought before you made that comment, because it wasn't conservatives who were being played for fools by the Obama Administration, nor was it conservatives who bought into it hook, line and sinker either...

And on the flip side, you have republicans, who didn't even read whats in the bill, hate it because their reps and foxs news told them to.


Like I said earlier, Kentuckians find Kynect more popular than Obamacare :screwy
 
And on the flip side, you have republicans, who didn't even read whats in the bill, hate it because their reps and foxs news told them to.


Like I said earlier, Kentuckians find Kynect more popular than Obamacare :screwy

Thank you for reminding me.... I had forgotten that not having enough time to read the bill, was indeed one of the main reason stated by Republicans for voting "no" on Obamacare. Republicans did precisely the right thing by not voting to pass a bill that they had not been given time to read. Thanks to Mr. Gruber, we now understand exactly why the Democrats wouldn't allow anyone to read it before voting to pass it. If they had done so, their scam would have been exposed.

Again, you really should have thought things out a little better before hitting the "Post" button.
 
Back
Top Bottom