The Political Party

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

The Bible says government is agent of God - to administer justice. 

The reason conservatives are against the government feeding the poor is because conservatives care about the poor.  Anybody who cares about the poor is against the government programs because they don't work.  If the government could cure poverty, shoot, we'd be all for it.  But they make things worse.  The different between liberal and conservative is not in motive but in willingness to face reality.  But, I gotta say, when people support programs that are known failures, you have to wonder what their real motivations are.

---

 government welfare programs have been proven to reduce poverty

you seem to attempting to use Christianity to create a very non-Christian government

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Booker wrote:

That is literally the most retarded thing I have ever read.

---

You obviously haven't read much, then, if these ideas are totally new to you.  HCPP and TV Guide, that's about it, eh?

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Bowe wrote:

 government welfare programs have been proven to reduce poverty

That's an obvious bluff. I know it's a bluff, because if you'd ever thought about how you'd establish such a statement - well, you'd have said something different.

you seem to attempting to use Christianity to create a very non-Christian government

---

oh, just listen to me and think about what I say, instead of worrying about what I "seem" to be doing. You can't spend your life being afraid of ideas, right? Maybe you can.

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:
That's an obvious bluff. I know it's a bluff, because if you'd ever thought about how you'd establish such a statement - well, you'd have said something different.

plenty of studies on the matter

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3088901?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101564174663

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf

[gismo recording]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

That's what government is for. According to the Bible, government is the agent of God. Bet you libs didn't know that, eh? Of course, government itself can become bad, as when the US sanctions the killing of the unborn innocent children.

How about when they try to dictate to other countries what weapons they are allowed/not allowed to own?

[Just Me]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Just Me wrote:

---

If government is the agent of god, then why are conservatives against the government feeding the poor, taking care of the elderly, helping the homeless, the disabled? Not to mention, they don't really seem to care that  our way of life is destroying his creation - the Earth. 

The Bible says government is agent of God - to administer justice. 

The reason conservatives are against the government feeding the poor is because conservatives care about the poor.  Anybody who cares about the poor is against the government programs because they don't work.  If the government could cure poverty, shoot, we'd be all for it.  But they make things worse.  The different between liberal and conservative is not in motive but in willingness to face reality.  But, I gotta say, when people support programs that are known failures, you have to wonder what their real motivations are.

---

What a load of horse **bleep**.

The lies you have to tell yourself as a "Christian" just to get a good night's sleep, eh?

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Just Me wrote:

The lies you have to tell yourself as a "Christian" just to get a good night's sleep, eh?

What lies? WTF are you talking about? Some of you guys that can't put together even one sentence of coherent disagreement with a mainstream political philosophy, just because your never hear it on Jon Stewart or whatever... Oh well, so you can't, so - NEVER MIND!

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Bowe wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:
That's an obvious bluff. I know it's a bluff, because if you'd ever thought about how you'd establish such a statement - well, you'd have said something different.

plenty of studies on the matter

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3088901?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101564174663

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf

---

And, just for fun, I should start a thread claiming that the gap between rich and poor is shrinking, which of course would happen if poverty were being eliminated.  Then you could argue against yourself, and, delightfully, never realize you were doing so.

[Mossy Mossy Mo…]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Bowe wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:
That's an obvious bluff. I know it's a bluff, because if you'd ever thought about how you'd establish such a statement - well, you'd have said something different.

plenty of studies on the matter

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3088901?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101564174663

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf

---

And, just for fun, I should start a thread claiming that the gap between rich and poor is shrinking, which of course would happen if poverty were being eliminated.  Then you could argue against yourself, and, delightfully, never realize you were doing so.

---

As a good Christian, you pool all your material goods and share them communally with your Christian brethren, right?

[Just Me]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Just Me wrote:

The lies you have to tell yourself as a "Christian" just to get a good night's sleep, eh?

What lies?

How about the one where you tell yourself that government safety net programs do not work, so you should not have to pay for them? 

Governmemt hasnt cured poverty completely, so lets disband the entire thing?

Nice little bit of dishonesty to justify your own selfishness there.

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

And, just for fun, I should start a thread claiming that the gap between rich and poor is shrinking, which of course would happen if poverty were being eliminated.  Then you could argue against yourself, and, delightfully, never realize you were doing so.

---

why would the gap between rich and poor have to be shrinking if poverty was on the decline? once again, you've just pulled something from your rear in attempt to back up what you're saying

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Bowe wrote:

---

why would the gap between rich and poor have to be shrinking if poverty was on the decline? once again, you've just pulled something from your rear in attempt to back up what you're saying

---

It's arithmetic, Bowe.  B minus A decreases as A increases.  I guess it's algebra when you use letters.  Of course, B can be increasing at the same time, but all else being equal, if the war on poverty were being won, the gap would be shrinking.  Hey, just trying to get you to think about the reality that you yourself can see, instead of running around trying to find some links to make an argument.

[Booker]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Bowe wrote:

---

why would the gap between rich and poor have to be shrinking if poverty was on the decline? once again, you've just pulled something from your rear in attempt to back up what you're saying

---

It's arithmetic, Bowe.  B minus A decreases as A increases.  I guess it's algebra when you use letters.  Of course, B can be increasing at the same time, but all else being equal, if the war on poverty were being won, the gap would be shrinking.  Hey, just trying to get you to think about the reality that you yourself can see, instead of running around trying to find some links to make an argument.

---

I'd love for you to explain to me how less people being in poverty, means more people are rich.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Booker wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Bowe wrote:

---

why would the gap between rich and poor have to be shrinking if poverty was on the decline? once again, you've just pulled something from your rear in attempt to back up what you're saying

---

It's arithmetic, Bowe.  B minus A decreases as A increases.  I guess it's algebra when you use letters.  Of course, B can be increasing at the same time, but all else being equal, if the war on poverty were being won, the gap would be shrinking.  Hey, just trying to get you to think about the reality that you yourself can see, instead of running around trying to find some links to make an argument.

---

I'd love for you to explain to me how less people being in poverty, means more people are rich.

---

Yeah, ok, we can't do algebra here, or logic, or anything of the sort, so I come to this point where I realize I'm living in fantasy land trying to have a debate.  I'm giving it up, boys.  Whatever.  Have a great life, just please don't vote.

[Booker]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Booker wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Bowe wrote:

---

why would the gap between rich and poor have to be shrinking if poverty was on the decline? once again, you've just pulled something from your rear in attempt to back up what you're saying

---

It's arithmetic, Bowe.  B minus A decreases as A increases.  I guess it's algebra when you use letters.  Of course, B can be increasing at the same time, but all else being equal, if the war on poverty were being won, the gap would be shrinking.  Hey, just trying to get you to think about the reality that you yourself can see, instead of running around trying to find some links to make an argument.

---

I'd love for you to explain to me how less people being in poverty, means more people are rich.

---

Yeah, ok, we can't do algebra here, or logic, or anything of the sort, so I come to this point where I realize I'm living in fantasy land trying to have a debate.  I'm giving it up, boys.  Whatever.  Have a great life, just please don't vote.

---

If you can't back up your tripe, don't post it.

Just because people are not below the poverty line, does not mean more people are becoming wealthy, or even moving into the wealthy bracket.

All it means is there are more lower middle class people. 

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

It's arithmetic, Bowe.  B minus A decreases as A increases.  I guess it's algebra when you use letters.  Of course, B can be increasing at the same time, but all else being equal, if the war on poverty were being won, the gap would be shrinking.  Hey, just trying to get you to think about the reality that you yourself can see, instead of running around trying to find some links to make an argument.

---

tyou don't seem to be able to recognize, that all incomes can go up, but inequally, so the income of those of the bottom can go up, which can bring them out of poverty, but the income of those at the top can go up at a much greater rate, thus both decreasing poverty, and increasing the gap between the richest and the poorest

and that seems to be what happened in the US

thats also ignoring that we're talking about welfare programs, which wouldn't be counted as part of someones income, a lot of the people at the bottom aren't out of poverty because their share of income has increased, but because welfare suppliments them

[Kramerguy]

---

fretmess wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

Yep...all that "all men are created equal"...."inalienable rights"....just a bunch of silliness.

---

Oh yeah ........and women too.

---

Well it is rather interesting that the founders knew the difference between Men, Women, Humans, Negros, Chinese, Japanese, and Persians...  They chose "men" for a reason.  Especially interesting is they didn't choose "Humans" or "mankind"... very, very interesting, actually.

Could it be they were just a bunch of misogynist slave-owners who only cared about "what's in it for me?"

[ryan7585]

---

mauser wrote:

Yep...all that "all men are created equal"...."inalienable rights"....just a bunch of silliness.

---

Yep!

---

WynnD wrote:
I hate to be the one to point out that all men aren't created equal. (Women too.) You just can't tell what they're good at by just looking at them. Everyone deserves equal opportunity, but they will use that in different ways and effectiveness. You should ask people who are particularly tall if they're good at basketball. You would be amazed how many don't even play. (And are sick of people assuming they're good because they are tall.) My 6'4" son never liked the game and was dragged into it in Jr. High only to be as bad as he thought he was. His life hasn't depended upon playing that game. (He's successful, but not at basketball.)

---

Exactly. The idea that all men are created equal, and the idea that all men should be given equal opportunity, are two seperate and distinct ideas. The first one is wrong, the second one is obvious. As far as the law goes: F.UCK the law. Fu.ck it.

[yanktar]

Markoh is a demonstration yet again that Republicans and right-wing-nuts can't do simple math and cannot even do arithmetic.
"2+2=22" ===> GOP math!