glassgowkiss Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 tough, but not on real crime. this is what happens, when you politicize police force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Furley Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Too bad your parents weren't tough on stupid.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mtguide Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Shocked, but not surprised. This is why we call them "Re-thug-licans'. They think the laws apply to everyone else but them, and that there are two main ways to be outside the law. The first, if you're in a position of power; therefore above the law, immune from prosecution. The second, if you're poor or minority; therefore not worth the time and effort of protecting or defending under the law. Â And of course a third category in which the law is applied punitively, and unjustly, if necessary, to exclude, intimidate, eliminate or oppress the poor, minorities, illegal immigrants or any others of contrary political, social or cultural persuasion. Sheriff Arpaio is well known as a bully and selective practitioner of law "enforcement". There is also a fourth and all-inclusive category, that of "human being", which Re-thuglicans and conservatives generally prefer not to recognize or discuss. Â Those who endeavour to keep others down, lower themselves in doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 There is also a fourth and all-inclusive category, that of "human being", which Democrats and libtards generally prefer not to recognize or discuss.      Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 There is also a fourth and all-inclusive category, that of "human being", which Democrats and libtards generally prefer not to recognize or discuss.     yes, while republicans are really eager to protect life of fetus, somehow they are ok with fucking them after the birth. great logic! let's discuss this topic. let's discuss the fact 30% of children in this country live below poverty line, let's discuss cuts to the social services for children in poverty, let's discuss also cuts in education, health. Let's discuss mortality rate among children, which are so high, United States is lower then countries like Iran! somehow you neglect to mention this aspect. just shows how stupid and incapable of putting two and two together you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Too bad your parents weren't tough on stupid.. at least i had parents, i am sure your daddy liked you very much- in a tool shed. unlike you, i don't find fucking children in real life amusing, nor I try to excuse the offenders, which is obvious you are doing in this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 yes, while republicans are really eager to protect life of fetus, somehow they are ok with fucking them after the birth. great logic! let's discuss this topic. let's discuss the fact 30% of children in this country live below poverty line, let's discuss cuts to the social services for children in poverty, let's discuss also cuts in education, health. Let's discuss mortality rate among children, which are so high, United States is lower then countries like Iran! somehow you neglect to mention this aspect. just shows how stupid and incapable of putting two and two together you are. Â Then why did you come here to live? Seriously. Never mind that you can't provide evidence for any of your assertions; somebody told you what to believe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 at least i had parents, i am sure your daddy liked you very much- in a tool shed. unlike you, i don't find fucking children in real life amusing, nor I try to excuse the offenders, which is obvious you are doing in this post. Â Dude, you need to chill out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Then why did you come here to live? Seriously. Never mind that you can't provide evidence for any of your assertions; somebody told you what to believe! well, unlike you, i don't listen to fox "news". it's not hard to find some simple facts: fact fact fact  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Too bad your parents weren't tough on stupid.. Â Too bad your mother drank Jack Daniels all the time she was pregnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 There is also a fourth and all-inclusive category, that of "human being", which Democrats and libtards generally prefer not to recognize or discuss.      And yet Mississippi - a solidly Republican state, I believe - recently voted nearly 60% against a proposed amendment to the state constitution which would have formally recognized personhood as starting at the moment of conception. So it would seem that, even in Mississippi, voters' views are a bit more nuanced than the prevailing Republican vs Democrat stereotypes would have us believe. Unfortunately, the environment has become so polarized that anyone trying to espouse a nuanced view on any given subject is almost instantly drowned out by the partisan vitriol being shouted at them from both sides. If we could just move beyond that to truly civil discussions we might actually start to make some progress, but it seems so entrenched now that I don't hold out much hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Then why did you come here to live? Seriously. Never mind that you can't provide evidence for any of your assertions; somebody told you what to believe! well, unlike you, i don't listen to fox "news". it's not hard to find some simple facts: fact fact fact  Apparently, you have difficulty reading your own stats. I'm seeing 20% children in (so-called) poverty and no correlation to national politics. Nowhere do I see the claim you made about US v Iran or the 30% number you burped up. Did you just make them up?  As was the case for all children, the percentage of related children with family incomes below the poverty threshold was higher in 2009 (20 percent) than in 2008 (19 percent)The poverty rate for related children has fluctuated since the early 1980s, reaching a peak of 22 percent in 1993 and a low of 16 percent in 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 The poverty rate for related children has fluctuated since the early 1980s, reaching a peak of 22 percent in 1993 and a low of 16 percent in 2000.[/i] Â Reagan/Bush. Â Clinton. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Republican Congress starting in 1994. The tide rose once again. All boats were lifted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 OMG! LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Bill Clinton. "Welfare Reform." His idea. Just ask him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 And yet Mississippi - a solidly Republican state, I believe - recently voted nearly 60% against a proposed amendment to the state constitution which would have formally recognized personhood as starting at the moment of conception. So it would seem that, even in Mississippi, voters' views are a bit more nuanced than the prevailing Republican vs Democrat stereotypes would have us believe. Unfortunately, the environment has become so polarized that anyone trying to espouse a nuanced view on any given subject is almost instantly drowned out by the partisan vitriol being shouted at them from both sides. If we could just move beyond that to truly civil discussions we might actually start to make some progress, but it seems so entrenched now that I don't hold out much hope. Â True all that. My guess is that once Mississippians realized that birth control pills don't actually prevent conception and would be banned by the crazies they had second thoughts. I was just pointing out the irony in "MtnGuide's" (hereallyisamountainguidejustaskhim) idiotic premise. It's my latest thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Furley Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Too bad your parents weren't tough on stupid.. Â Too bad your mother drank Jack Daniels all the time she was pregnant. Â Too bad your mother had to take a shit that fateful day you were born. Â Holy shit, 13000 posts? Are you kidding me? Does anyone even take you seriously with that kind of post count? Â You dumb fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil K Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Troll-O-Matic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 let's discuss the fact 30% of children in this country live below poverty line, let's discuss cuts to the social services for children in poverty, let's discuss also cuts in education, health. Let's discuss mortality rate among children, which are so high, United States is lower then countries like Iran! somehow you neglect to mention this aspect. just shows how stupid and incapable of putting two and two together you are.  -FWIW the data series in the US computes the incomes that the poverty calculations are based on sans all non-cash transfer payments like Medicaid, housing vouchers, and food stamps - e.g. most of the programs that the country uses to transfer resources to the people in the lowest household income quintiles. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/measuring-poverty  -The way various countries determine what constitutes a live birth differ significantly (too small, too premature, dies too soon after being born = doesn't count in lots of countries). Consequently the stats don't tell you very much useful information about how many babies in a given country that died would have lived had they been given highest level of medical care available on the planet actually died and vice versa. Is the average level of medical care available to expectant mothers and pre/post natal infants better in Iran than the US? Maybe - but it's tough to tell from the data. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11862950  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) You're right, JayB. There is no problem at all, the number of children below poverty line is insignificant. Thanks for keeping us from wasting time talking about it. Nothing to see here, move along! Edited December 5, 2011 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Bill Clinton. "Welfare Reform." His idea. Just ask him. Â Oh, so now you like him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 -FWIW the data series in the US computes the incomes that the poverty calculations are based on sans all non-cash transfer payments like Medicaid, housing vouchers, and food stamps - e.g. most of the programs that the country uses to transfer resources to the people in the lowest household income quintiles. Â THANK GOD FOR 'BIG GOVERNMENT'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 getting back to the point- the poster boy for republithugs "tough on crime" turns out to be just another bigot and utter douchebag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 You're right, JayB. There is no problem at all, the number of children below poverty line is insignificant. Thanks for keeping us from wasting time talking about it. Nothing to see here, move along! Â -Measuring poverty without including the value of all of the transfers folks get to alleviate it makes about as much sense as measuring incomes without factoring in all of the paychecks. Given that poor households consume 2X more goods and services than they could pay for with their W2-income, that's a pretty big, and strange, omission from the data and the poverty calculations. To me it's quite puzzling that we've continued to measure poverty as though none of the programs we have to help poor people exist. Â The time series can tell you useful information about what's happening with take-home pay in low income households, but it's less clear that it tells you about how likely children in households below the poverty threshold are to be in homes where the combined value of taxable-income + transfers isn't enough for a responsible adult to provide them with food, clothing, and shelter. Â Â Â Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.