30
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

 
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:08 am
@ehBeth,
Utah has always a conservative red state voting on Christian values. I imagine this year, they feel they have two bad choices.

Mormon Exodus: Trump, Clinton Tied in Utah at 26%; McMullin 22%, Johnson 14%

ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:14 am
@revelette2,
Interesting read. thanks.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:49 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Quote:

Your a dumb ass..


And you're afraid of trying to answer the rebuttal of a dumbass, so what does that make YOU?


A dumbass who doesn't know the correct form of contraction of the verb form, 'you are'.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:23 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Oh my gosh! I misspelled a word! Lord a mighty! Hey look, Blickers wrote something. I should go and read it now. I am so glad you're on the case to check my spelling. You can wipe my ass too if you're going to be so anal about my grammar. You'll enjoy it I'm sure.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:31 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers,

You are being silly. The point was it isnt about the income of the average family nor GDP. I think you love that graph so much you think its valid in every arguement.

The ratio of income to standard of living costs is only one factor. Lets take college education as an example.

A single mother of four. She cant afford tuition costs. She has her children apply for financial aid. Her children are only a few years appart. Multiply this on the average and you see a huge drain on financial resources to educate these children. Not to mention the other resources they contribute to such as waste and garbage production.

Then they each have multiple children they cant afford and it falls on tax payers to provide resources. Its an imbalanced equation that is doomed to come crashing down but the left seems to think there are endless resources, so its unnecessary to sanction birth rights.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:36 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

If that's true, why have you not been able to come up with a decent rebuttal after several responses? Probably because you couldn't find any in the right wing blogs you read. And since thinking for yourself is not something you feel comfortable with, you were out of options.


I felt my rebuttal was satisfactory as it was.

Blickers wrote:
Yes, there were many other ways to rebut Krumple, but I chose this way. Which means you and he still have the task of coming back and showing that the historical rebuttal I used wasn't true. Instead, both you and Krumple decided to throw a hissy fit on the thread in a lame attempt to not deal with the fact that if we had followed Krumple's insane plan 2,000 years ago, the human race would be extinct by now.


A hissy fit? Do people still say that? I said that your argument was stupid and pointless with more rhetorical flair. Who gives a rats ass what would have happened 2000 years ago? It's pointless to the conversation. You obviously don't understand that. Following any insane plan 2000 years ago would have changed a lot of things.

Blickers wrote:
Somebody who realizes that the Homo Sapiens of 2,000 years ago were just as smart as we, they just hadn't developed all the material tools we have.


Please demonstrate how you know that 2,000 years ago people were just as smart as they are now.

Blickers wrote:

And you're afraid of trying to answer the rebuttal of a dumbass, so what does that make YOU?


No, I just have you ignored and forgot to look if you answered.

Krumple put forth a statement that should be mostly ignored. I mean forced sterilization? Please. Even the dumbest among us have the freedom to procreate. I mean your parents did, right? Financial stability has nothing to do with the freedom allowed us in the good ol' US of A. Thing is though, you shouldn't expect someone else to take care of your offspring. Have all the kids you want, just take care of them. Don't use them as a free meal ticket at the welfare office. Kids deserve better.

But, did you ignore it? Noooooooo.... You say this "brilliant" turd.

Quote:
Brilliant suggestion, outside of the fact that if it was adopted 2,000 years ago the human race would have ceased to exist.


What the hell does that have to do with anything? 2000 years ago the US didn't exist and we didn't have kids on welfare and there would have been no need to implement a plan like Krumple suggested. So what was your ******* point?
Krumple
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:01 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Financial stability has nothing to do with the freedom allowed us in the good ol' US of A.


There are dozens of aspects that contradict this. Such as level of education, buying a house, buying a new car and applying for certain jobs. All are dictated or limited by your financial ability. Why should having children be a unregulated right?


McGentrix wrote:
Thing is though, you shouldn't expect someone else to take care of your offspring. Have all the kids you want, just take care of them. Don't use them as a free meal ticket at the welfare office. Kids deserve better.


I do agree with you here. But I feel it has gone ignored and its idealistic. But its not working and being abused with everyone else who IS being responsible picking up the bill.

McGentrix wrote:
What the hell does that have to do with anything? 2000 years ago the US didn't exist and we didn't have kids on welfare and there would have been no need to implement a plan like Krumple suggested. So what was your ******* point?


He just loves that graph which is why posting it one time was not enough. He had to spam it four times.
bobsal u1553115
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:05 pm
@McGentrix,
You type e-mails to your mother with those fingers? Shame on you.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:06 pm
@Krumple,
Sorry Mrs Hawkeye, that Libertarian bushwa just won't play here.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:07 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

There are dozens of aspects that contradict this. Such as level of education, buying a house, buying a new car and applying for certain jobs. All are dictated or limited by your financial ability. Why should having children be a unregulated right?


Fundamental freedom. You don't want kids, don't have kids. But regulation of children is just a step WAAAAY too large. People can be trained, people can make a lot of money, people can create vast empires.

I was not wealthy, did not own a house, didn't have a stable future when my wife and I had children. My son graduated valedictorian of his class of 380 kids. No financial limitation on that and if anyone ever tried to take that right away from me would have a heck of a fight.

Now I have a stable income, I own 3 houses, I have a retirement planand am too old to be raising children.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:09 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

You type e-mails to your mother with those fingers? Shame on you.


My mother passed away 2 years ago. Thanks for the reminder.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:13 pm
@McGentrix,
Mine died last April. And YOUR point?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:15 pm
@McGentrix,
But to be fair all you had was a son?

And you were not recieving government help?

And you had plans to maintain your financial seeking responsibilty?

I think there is a difference here. Where you would have been qualified.

Im not trying to be difficult im saying the system we have can not maintain itself. It will collapse at some point.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:18 pm
@Krumple,
No, had a daughter as well. She's in High School now. Government can not be allowed to be that involved in people's lives. Look at the misery that exists in China and the problems that have risen from their failed experimentation with human lives.

The system we have is pretty darn good. Now if we can only get the Government out of the rest of our lives we would be doing even better.
Krumple
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:27 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

No, had a daughter as well. She's in High School now. Government can not be allowed to be that involved in people's lives. Look at the misery that exists in China and the problems that have risen from their failed experimentation with human lives.

The system we have is pretty darn good. Now if we can only get the Government out of the rest of our lives we would be doing even better.


Thats not really a leftist attitude? Can I safely assume you are not? Typically leftists feel only the government can solve problems.

Im all for government getting out of peoples lives but we cant have this hybrid where they are asked to be involved and they told to stay out. We need to educate the idea of personal responsibilty for, retirement, standards of living, education and tax obligations.

Why is it fair we prop up the lazy where the responsible pay for them?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:39 pm
@McGentrix,
I used to have property income, but got rid of them when I retired. Didn't want to bother with tenants, complaints, repairs and maintenance, and having to visit the property regularly to make sure it was still standing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 03:18 pm
Jill Stein

What hypocrisy: Hillary Clinton has gone after Donald Trump for being a climate change denier.
Yet, we have evidence she has promoted fracking around the world. Fracking is not only dangerous because it can pollute drinking water and cause earthquakes, it continues our addiction to oil.
So, Hillary, do you want to stop climate change or not?
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 07:08 pm
Word in the dictionary:
Clintonesque
http://www.definition-of.com/Clintonesque
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 08:31 pm
@Krumple,
Quote Krumple:
Quote:
A single mother of four. She cant afford tuition costs. She has her children apply for financial aid. Her children are only a few years appart. Multiply this on the average and you see a huge drain on financial resources to educate these children. Not to mention the other resources they contribute to such as waste and garbage production.

Then they each have multiple children they cant afford and it falls on tax payers to provide resources. Its an imbalanced equation that is doomed to come crashing down but the left seems to think there are endless resources, so its unnecessary to sanction birth rights.

Yet it hasn't. The percentage of college graduates has GROWN in the last few decades. The percentage of home ownership has GROWN in the last few decades. Your Doomsday scenario has not happened-in fact the reverse has occurred.

By the way, are you aware of the percentage of the workforce in the US with a college degree? About 30 percent. And that's the highest it's ever been. So now you've gone from limiting the number of people allowed to have children to classifying 70% of the US workforce as moochers and undesirables. Even if they working.

Since you've already called your mad scheme to prevent the poor from giving birth a plan to "sanction birthrights", no doubt your next idea to deal with the 70% of Americans of working age without college degrees will be labelled a necessary plan to "sanction breathing rights".

It is plain that if you had your way, a high percentage of those who presently inhabit the Earth wouldn't be.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 08:45 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I felt my rebuttal was satisfactory as it was.

Your rebuttal was virtually nonexistent.

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I said that your argument was stupid and pointless with more rhetorical flair. Who gives a rats ass what would have happened 2000 years ago? It's pointless to the conversation.

If what happened 2,000 years was Krumple's insane sterilization plan (which you never bothered to divorce yourself from until now), it would have been quite relevant to the conversation. This is because Krumple's plan would have led to the human race's extinction long before now, so this conversation would not be taking place. One would think that a plan, if adopted many generations ago, would have led to the end of the species would constitute a good reason to reject it now, but you fail to see that. Somehow.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.04 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:31:05