D
dems4me
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
I can only hope and pray...
- Thread starter rraley
- Start date
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
No, Republicans have no problem giving to the poor. We just don't approve of the government deciding which "charity cases" we must support over others. We prefer to make our own decisions. Look at the charitable donations of our Pres/V.P. and notice that Kerry's and Gore's charitable donations pale in comparison.
No, Republicans have no problem giving to the poor. We just don't approve of the government deciding which "charity cases" we must support over others. We prefer to make our own decisions. Look at the charitable donations of our Pres/V.P. and notice that Kerry's and Gore's charitable donations pale in comparison.
D
dems4me
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
Nicest thing you have said to me in months
What about those that are handicapped and poor and can't work :shrug:
Nicest thing you have said to me in months
What about those that are handicapped and poor and can't work :shrug:
D
dems4me
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
On a scale from 1-10 -- what would you rate it and why :shrug:
On a scale from 1-10 -- what would you rate it and why :shrug:
D
dems4me
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
I see. Thanks!!!
I see. Thanks!!!
Pete
Repete
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
How about a big old
You continue to toss a few $$ at the leeches and when they crack you over your skull with a wine bottle and swipe the $4 you have left out of your purse, I will cry for you ok.
You know what, we have been through this ad nauzium. WTF do you get off portraying republicans as villians and backturners on the poor and really deserving every effing day? Just because we believe thet the 90% of those on welfare whose only disability is either laziness, or the fact they pumped out 6 illegitimate kids by age 22 and they cannot work for lack of daycare shouldn't get a free ride forever?Originally posted by dems4me
Nicest thing you have said to me in months
What about those that are handicapped and poor and can't work :shrug:
How about a big old
You continue to toss a few $$ at the leeches and when they crack you over your skull with a wine bottle and swipe the $4 you have left out of your purse, I will cry for you ok.
Toxick
Splat
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
It doesn't take much physical acumen to be a door-greeter at walmart. In fact, I've seen many handicapped people working at walmart. I believe that there are many companies (EEEEEVIL corporations mostly) that make it a point to hire physically and mentally challenged people.
There will always be people who are completly incapable of providing for themselves. But I fully believe these are the exceptions - NOT the rule, and should be treated as such.
And, I don't see how being poor can prevent someone from working. I used to be poor. It was work that made me un-poor.
It doesn't take much physical acumen to be a door-greeter at walmart. In fact, I've seen many handicapped people working at walmart. I believe that there are many companies (EEEEEVIL corporations mostly) that make it a point to hire physically and mentally challenged people.
There will always be people who are completly incapable of providing for themselves. But I fully believe these are the exceptions - NOT the rule, and should be treated as such.
And, I don't see how being poor can prevent someone from working. I used to be poor. It was work that made me un-poor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
You better come up with a better example than a door greeter at wal-mart. Most of the people who work at wal-mart are on some kind of assistance even though they are working. THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY THE BENEFITS THEY ARE OFFERED!
You better come up with a better example than a door greeter at wal-mart. Most of the people who work at wal-mart are on some kind of assistance even though they are working. THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY THE BENEFITS THEY ARE OFFERED!
Toxick
Splat
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry is not stupid enough...
Excuse me, I better?
Arrogant sneering tone aside, what are you telling me? That working in retail is not honest work, for honest pay?
That must have really hurt when you pulled it right the #### out of your ass.
Do you actually believe that crap you just said? That most people who work at walmart are on some kind of assistance? Do you have numbers to back this up?
Excuse me, I better?
Arrogant sneering tone aside, what are you telling me? That working in retail is not honest work, for honest pay?
That must have really hurt when you pulled it right the #### out of your ass.
Do you actually believe that crap you just said? That most people who work at walmart are on some kind of assistance? Do you have numbers to back this up?
BIG DEAL OVER BIG BOX: In the latest local salvo in a national effort to put the brakes on the development of mega stores, the Calvert County Commission has scheduled a July 13 public hearing on “Big Box” legislation. A similar Montgomery County bill awaits committee action in the County Council.
Big Box stores are drawing increasing opposition from the labor movement as well as community, environmental and civil rights activists, because of the leading role in their development by Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the U.S. and one of the nation’s most fiercely anti-union corporations.
Opponents cite a long list of reasons to restrict stores that are now reaching well over 200,000 square feet in size. Evidence is mounting that Big Box stores cause or contribute to a number of community problems including increased traffic congestion, pollution and low-wage, no benefit jobs. Low prices on Big Box shelves are subsidized by these hidden costs, which must be shouldered by local taxpayers. For example, despite Wal-Mart’s immense profitability, the company pays little or no corporate income tax in Maryland while state taxpayers subsidize health care for Wal-Mart workers to the tune of millions of dollars a year. And when Wal-Mart and other chains build new Big Box stores, they often shut down existing stores, leaving deserted empty buildings, parking lots and devastated communities.
In the ongoing fight to build livable communities for working families, Big Box development is now a big deal.
I'll work on the actual numbers for you.
P.S. before someone starts crying, It's not copy writed material.
Big Box stores are drawing increasing opposition from the labor movement as well as community, environmental and civil rights activists, because of the leading role in their development by Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the U.S. and one of the nation’s most fiercely anti-union corporations.
Opponents cite a long list of reasons to restrict stores that are now reaching well over 200,000 square feet in size. Evidence is mounting that Big Box stores cause or contribute to a number of community problems including increased traffic congestion, pollution and low-wage, no benefit jobs. Low prices on Big Box shelves are subsidized by these hidden costs, which must be shouldered by local taxpayers. For example, despite Wal-Mart’s immense profitability, the company pays little or no corporate income tax in Maryland while state taxpayers subsidize health care for Wal-Mart workers to the tune of millions of dollars a year. And when Wal-Mart and other chains build new Big Box stores, they often shut down existing stores, leaving deserted empty buildings, parking lots and devastated communities.
In the ongoing fight to build livable communities for working families, Big Box development is now a big deal.
I'll work on the actual numbers for you.
P.S. before someone starts crying, It's not copy writed material.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hey...
...he's your guy. Glad you like him but, frankly, he is the one we here at the VRWC had hoped to trick Kerry into selecting.
Your analysis is interesting, especially as it pertains to his real world performance, ie, his performance in the primary. Kerry beat him in North Carolina.
Actually, Dean was our first choice. Then Clark but those two were considered to obvious and people would get suspicious.
Gephardt was the one I was worreid about because of the unions, who demanded him, who do so well on the ground at polling places. I'm sure they'll be all fired up about a one term, free trade trial lawyer who couldn't beat the lead dog, Kerry, in the South where he is, as you claim, suppossed to help.
You wanna run a populist campaign on what would already be the richest occupant of the Whitehouse ever and add a self made multi millionaire representing the peoples second 'favorite' profession, trial lawyers, you go right ahead. Party of the people indeed.
Edwards will do.
...he's your guy. Glad you like him but, frankly, he is the one we here at the VRWC had hoped to trick Kerry into selecting.
Your analysis is interesting, especially as it pertains to his real world performance, ie, his performance in the primary. Kerry beat him in North Carolina.
Actually, Dean was our first choice. Then Clark but those two were considered to obvious and people would get suspicious.
Gephardt was the one I was worreid about because of the unions, who demanded him, who do so well on the ground at polling places. I'm sure they'll be all fired up about a one term, free trade trial lawyer who couldn't beat the lead dog, Kerry, in the South where he is, as you claim, suppossed to help.
You wanna run a populist campaign on what would already be the richest occupant of the Whitehouse ever and add a self made multi millionaire representing the peoples second 'favorite' profession, trial lawyers, you go right ahead. Party of the people indeed.
Edwards will do.
Re: Hey...
Oh man, oh man. Have a lot to refute here.
Kerry beat him in North Carolina, which held its primary in May or June, two months after Senator Edwards dropped out of the race. So what if he lost in the North Carolina primary after he had suspended his campaign, had endorsed Kerry, and campaigned for him. Losing North Carolina is not anywhere near an issue. He did win South Carolina though by 15 points when he was running.
Dick Gephardt may have been one of the worst choices the Kerry campaign could have made. Gephardt is boring, tied to the old Democratic Party, and offers zero energy. He is a loser - twice for the White House and four times for the speakership of the House of Representatives. The service unions of this nation supported an Edwards selection - AFSCME had a member poll of which 80% said they wanted Edwards as the running mate. He received the support of many unions during his campaign. Furthermore, Edwards is not a proponent of free trade - he opposes NAFTA and scores of other free trade agreements.
And I am damn proud that we are running a populist campaign. John Edwards lives the populist dream of coming from poverty and acquiring your own wealth, rather than getting it all from your daddy. He lived a true life of family values. He is the personification of a populist life; I don't see how him being on the ticket will cut away from that populist message.
Frankly, the only reason that all of this coming out is because Edwards is a Democrat. If Clark was the nominee, the GOP would say that other generals saw "character problems" with him. If it was Gephardt, the GOP would say that he was a loser, supportive of repealing middle class tax cuts, and connected to the corrupt labor unions of America. If Vilsak was the nominee, the GOP would say that he lacked the experience we need in vice-presidents. The GOP knows that Edwards will help Kerry win in the South (a Kerry/Edwards ticket is winning in North Carolina according to some polls; this state went for Bush by 13 points in 200), help the ticket in blue collar Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. They know that he has the image of a centrist. Frankly, a Kerry/Edwards ticket is something to seriously fear (after all a couple of months ago they both had ten point leads on their own over Bush). Republicans will say that Kerry really wanted John McCain and they will try to distort this into yet another Kerry flip-flop, but the fact remains that a Kerry/Edwards ticket is in every regard toe to toe with a Bush/Cheney ticket.
Oh man, oh man. Have a lot to refute here.
Kerry beat him in North Carolina, which held its primary in May or June, two months after Senator Edwards dropped out of the race. So what if he lost in the North Carolina primary after he had suspended his campaign, had endorsed Kerry, and campaigned for him. Losing North Carolina is not anywhere near an issue. He did win South Carolina though by 15 points when he was running.
Dick Gephardt may have been one of the worst choices the Kerry campaign could have made. Gephardt is boring, tied to the old Democratic Party, and offers zero energy. He is a loser - twice for the White House and four times for the speakership of the House of Representatives. The service unions of this nation supported an Edwards selection - AFSCME had a member poll of which 80% said they wanted Edwards as the running mate. He received the support of many unions during his campaign. Furthermore, Edwards is not a proponent of free trade - he opposes NAFTA and scores of other free trade agreements.
And I am damn proud that we are running a populist campaign. John Edwards lives the populist dream of coming from poverty and acquiring your own wealth, rather than getting it all from your daddy. He lived a true life of family values. He is the personification of a populist life; I don't see how him being on the ticket will cut away from that populist message.
Frankly, the only reason that all of this coming out is because Edwards is a Democrat. If Clark was the nominee, the GOP would say that other generals saw "character problems" with him. If it was Gephardt, the GOP would say that he was a loser, supportive of repealing middle class tax cuts, and connected to the corrupt labor unions of America. If Vilsak was the nominee, the GOP would say that he lacked the experience we need in vice-presidents. The GOP knows that Edwards will help Kerry win in the South (a Kerry/Edwards ticket is winning in North Carolina according to some polls; this state went for Bush by 13 points in 200), help the ticket in blue collar Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. They know that he has the image of a centrist. Frankly, a Kerry/Edwards ticket is something to seriously fear (after all a couple of months ago they both had ten point leads on their own over Bush). Republicans will say that Kerry really wanted John McCain and they will try to distort this into yet another Kerry flip-flop, but the fact remains that a Kerry/Edwards ticket is in every regard toe to toe with a Bush/Cheney ticket.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You can refute what you want...
...the facts are Edwards bailed from the race because he was doing nowhere near good enough in the Southern states to stay in the race.
You mentioned LBJ before. Now there is a better example. He pulled big in the South. Edwards got run out by a...a...Yanhn-kee.
...or marrying it? Twice.
I stand corrected on his voting record:
http://www.buncombegop.org/edwards010603.html
That's great. Kerry; left of Ted. John; right there with Ted.
Help in West Virginian and Pennsylvania with that record?
Well, anyway, you got him. Congrats! Guess you might as well make lemonade.
...the facts are Edwards bailed from the race because he was doing nowhere near good enough in the Southern states to stay in the race.
You mentioned LBJ before. Now there is a better example. He pulled big in the South. Edwards got run out by a...a...Yanhn-kee.
...or marrying it? Twice.
I stand corrected on his voting record:
http://www.buncombegop.org/edwards010603.html
That's great. Kerry; left of Ted. John; right there with Ted.
Help in West Virginian and Pennsylvania with that record?
Well, anyway, you got him. Congrats! Guess you might as well make lemonade.