Why criticizing America is the right thing to do..

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar you let your membership "lapse" for reasons you cannot remember? Really? If I quit something with a membership fee I'm going to remember WHY I quit. Maybe you quit because you couldn't get a subsidy or assistance for the membership fee? Were you looking for something like a section 8 voucher that you could apply to the membership?

As for you "defying" me to show proof of where you trashed anyone here I simply offer doris (sorry doris) as proof. How about the vile names you've called her? How about the woman you referred to as a "hag?" I won't even mention the number of times you've called me: "TedLurk" or some other juvenile adaptation of my screen name.

If you are unhappy with the current crop of presidential candidates, run for the office yourself.

[notes1]

the keystone pipeline was killed because liberals, such as hedge fund manager TOM STEYERS, an enviremental activist, pledged dems, he would give them $100 million to defeat it. does anyone really believe oil is going to stay at current price for long. as the price drops, production will decrease. and, why has the price dropped-fracking. apparently, it is better to send our money to oil producers in the middle east, who are trying to kill us, than to our friends north of the border.  statistics consistently show that conservative voters( those money hungry-haters of poor people, gun toters, believers that teaching someone how to fish is better than giving them a fish)  give more per capita to charity than liberal voters. liberals like to spend other peoples money. the war on poverty has been going on for 50 years,at a cost of trillions, and where has it gotten us, the same percentage of poor people exist as they did when LBJ was in office. over 200 people just died, including 25 children, from what is being reported as a bomb placed in a plane. and the culprits taking responsibilty, those 'JV' guys. isn't it interesting that for more than two weeks after BENGHAZI happened, obama and his cronies continued to blame it on a video (including a speech at the UN), while HILLARY had already emailed her family and the egyptians, the day after the murders, that it was a terrorist event. KK said it best, one may not like conservatives, but at least you know what they stand for.  

[DaBurglar]

the keystone pipeline was killed because liberals, such as hedge fund manager TOM STEYERS, an enviremental activist, pledged dems, he would give them $100 million to defeat it. does anyone really believe oil is going to stay at current price for long. as the price drops, production will decrease. and, why has the price dropped-fracking. apparently, it is better to send our money to oil producers in the middle east, who are trying to kill us, than to our friends north of the border.  statistics consistently show that conservative voters( those money hungry-haters of poor people, gun toters, believers that teaching someone how to fish is better than giving them a fish)  give more per capita to charity than liberal voters. liberals like to spend other peoples money. the war on poverty has been going on for 50 years,at a cost of trillions, and where has it gotten us, the same percentage of poor people exist as they did when LBJ was in office. over 200 people just died, including 25 children, from what is being reported as a bomb placed in a plane. and the culprits taking responsibilty, those 'JV' guys. isn't it interesting that for more than two weeks after BENGHAZI happened, obama and his cronies continued to blame it on a video (including a speech at the UN), while HILLARY had already emailed her family and the egyptians, the day after the murders, that it was a terrorist event. KK said it best, one may not like conservatives, but at least you know what they stand for.  While I do not agree with most of this, its a good post notes1 ....   Thanks for making the effort to argue intelligently and with substance, a lot more than can be said for the hapless frustrated spiteful poster who preceded your post.....I would be interested to know where you obtained the info you based your response on though, namely the portion about who actually gives what to "charity" (and WHICH charities are we actually talking about, and how the actual charitable GIVERS were identified as being either "liberal"  or "conservative", since MUCH of what is given to charitable foundations and causes is done anonymously.....)    Also, how did you determine (i.e. your source) for the statement that the "war on Poverty" has costed TRILLIONS with the result being the percentage of poor people are the same as 50 years ago? (I would actualy believe the percentage is HIGHER, but that's just my own personal guess......I am sincerely asking you to direct me to the info you have, that I freely admit has eluded me, to allow you to draw these conclusions......I am open minded enough to at least modify my own beliefs if shown REAL incontrovertible evidence that something or some issue is NOT what I have allowed myself to believe.)   Thanks in advance.....

[DaBurglar]

DaBurglar you let your membership "lapse" for reasons you cannot remember? Really? If I quit something with a membership fee I'm going to remember WHY I quit. Maybe you quit because you couldn't get a subsidy or assistance for the membership fee? Were you looking for something like a section 8 voucher that you could apply to the membership?
Yep, I have no clue why I allowed my membership to fall off the FIRST time I joined, but of course that time around I did not actually select AUTO renew so it most likely involved me NOT visiting the site for a sustained period (which happens to everyone I am sure) and by the time I came back, it had lapsed and I did not bother to renew it until I felt like doing so the NEXT time around.......I find it incredibly FUNNY, silly, infantile, absurd, spiteful, childish and about 137 other negatively humorous adjectives that you are actually attempting to some how "USE" this against me......to what end and purpose only YOU know, and that is a good thing.     I am 100% positive the viewing audience is also seriously wondering (not in a good way) just WTF your problem is, but hey, that's nothing new either.    I am safe though in my comfort that what you think on this matter has ZERO influence or impact on ANYTHING, and that must absolutely burn your mindset something awful......the only crap thing for me is, if I actually WANTED to renew my membership NOW, I'd have to listen to you gloat (or complain, who knows?) that you somehow influenced me into renewing......I am sure Webman is pleased about you both costing him another renewal, and for calling everyone here who enjoys the site but who doesnt want to join a freeloader.....
As for you "defying" me to show proof of where you trashed anyone here I simply offer doris (sorry doris) as proof. How about the vile names you've called her? How about the woman you referred to as a "hag?" I won't even mention the number of times you've called me: "TedLurk" or some other juvenile adaptation of my screen name.

If you are unhappy with the current crop of presidential candidates, run for the office yourself. How desperate are you to get in the last word on every exchange?  Seriously, its not rhetorical, answer the question......Go dig up your "notes" from the huge DABURGLAR FILE you obviously salivate over and show everyone all this scorn and trashing and disrespect I heaped on poor doris....seriously, do it.    I am certain that whatever you attempt to display to support this latest false accusation of yours will show that not only was it NOT me "trashing doris" as you claim but it was just the usual banter that takes place here, and that DORIS can give as good as she gets (contrary to this absurd image you are attempting to paint of "poor doris")       Also, please dig up the post where I used the term "hag"....I am not denying I might have typed such a word in one of my posts, but I am sure it was in a context that YOU would never bother to mention, assuming you actually UNDERSTOOD the context You are really really desperate TED, and EVERYONE here can see it.....why dont you just STOP trying to "get" me?   You never win, you never succeed because quite simply, YOU CANNOT......there is nothing to "get" me with, and even if there were, it is beyond your ability to "best" me in this type of competition (if you want to see it in those lights, which I personally try not to.....I regard this, and YOU as a annoyance, the price I guess I must continue to PAY for enjoying this otherwise great website.     Please note too, your harrassment of me was just as bad when I was actually paying the monthly fee, LOL!)Edited to add:   I just did a search (twice) looking for any post made by ME where I actually used the word "HAG" in it......the only results I received (not including this THREAD) were instances where the term hag appears as part of another word (like one time I used the term "Sammy Van Hagar" in reference to the band Van Halen appearing in a show with Sammy Hagar singing instead of David lee Roth......apparently I posted about the time they almost put a BAR in Ballys with Sammy Hagar as proprietor or some deal......

[pokerforme]

Using 5000 word posts does not make a good argument. That's assuming anyone reads your on going drivel anymore.

[DaBurglar]

Using 5000 word posts does not make a good argument. That's assuming anyone reads your on going drivel anymore.5000 huh?Well you just proved several things, including you neither can count nor read....well done sport.

[notes1]

months ago, you argued that there was widespread hunger in america. i provided data that refuted your claim. as far as poverty in america, the data comes from the CENSUS DEPT. with little effort, i found a pew research article that states, using that census data, that the poverty rate was 19% in 1964 and most recent year 2012, the level stood at 15%. after LBJ initiated the 'war on poverty, the rate fell immediately, but has stayed the same for decades. according to the Heritage foundation, published 2014, the US taxpayer have spent $22 TRILLION (in 2012 dollars) on anti poverty programs. this figure DOES NOT include social security or medicare. it is 3 times the cost of ALL military wars, since the american revolution. waste, fraud and abuse have consumed many of these anti poverty dollars. and worse, it has created 'dependency' upon others, instead of responsibility. that is among the reasons why 30% of all white babies and 70% of all black babies are born into single parent households. as far as whether 'right or left' gives more to charity, there are many articles available. although it is dated, among the most famous was published by the NEW YORK TIMES (about as liberal as one can get), with the title, BLEEDING HEART TIGHTWADS. you did not ask for verification about KEYSTONE, but that info is also easy to find. 

[DaBurglar]

months ago, you argued that there was widespread hunger in america. i provided data that refuted your claim. as far as poverty in america, the data comes from the CENSUS DEPT. with little effort, i found a pew research article that states, using that census data, that the poverty rate was 19% in 1964 and most recent year 2012, the level stood at 15%. after LBJ initiated the 'war on poverty, the rate fell immediately, but has stayed the same for decades. according to the Heritage foundation, published 2014, the US taxpayer have spent $22 TRILLION (in 2012 dollars) on anti poverty programs. this figure DOES NOT include social security or medicare. it is 3 times the cost of ALL military wars, since the american revolution. waste, fraud and abuse have consumed many of these anti poverty dollars. and worse, it has created 'dependency' upon others, instead of responsibility. that is among the reasons why 30% of all white babies and 70% of all black babies are born into single parent households. as far as whether 'right or left' gives more to charity, there are many articles available. although it is dated, among the most famous was published by the NEW YORK TIMES (about as liberal as one can get), with the title, BLEEDING HEART TIGHTWADS. you did not ask for verification about KEYSTONE, but that info is also easy to find. hmmmm...."easy" to find huh?     I'm still looking (its not that I cannot find any INFO, its that I am having difficulty finding YOUR info that you cited, but I will keep looking...)  Of course, if it is so easy and obvious, could you perhaps just post the SAME EXACT links you used to obtain this info so that I might read, evaluate, and thus, modify my position and viewpoint????  Specifically, the 22 Trillion figure.....There is a wide range of interpretation that can happen when looking at large scale "data".....for instance, it COULD be argued that while the overall RATE of poverty has not changed much, given the fact the population has GROWN so much since 1960 the money spent (i.e. your alleged 22 trillion) did serve to keep it from getting far far WORSE than it could have........Again thanks in advance....PS_   30 % of white babies & 70% of Black babies......???   I get the point about how some people lack "personal responsibility" (that is an obvious truism and condition of the human race), but when you just blurt out data like this in the manner (and context) it is easy to see that this is a veiled shot at minorities, and that is something I will never agree with.    You do not even seek to address the fact that blacks have been at a disadvantage for a very very long time and only in the VERY recent (last 35-40 years of the country's history) past has there been concrete attempts to address this, with only minor success.   Bigotry and racism persist everywhere......In 2013 there were 2,985,000 "white" babies born....so 30% of that is roughly 900,000;in 2013 there were 634,000 "black" births, so 70% of THAT is about  443,000.......source >>>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr6 ... .pdfedited to add:  I do not remember exactly where we left off with the whole "hunger" claim, but here is the real truth (in an attempt to keep it simple):  about 1 in 7 (or 14-15%) of Americans today RELY on foodbanks......source>>> http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea ... facts.htmI believe you originally tried to say "NO ONE" is hungry or starving in America...or a miniscule amount.    1 in 7 is not miniscule, nor is it NO ONE.

[notes1]

i gave you a source on the $22 trillion figure.i gave you a NY TIMES article to reference regarding charitable giving. i brought up birth stats to support my assertion that irresponsible behavior is encouraged by 'giving stuff' away. and,  typical of all liberals, when you wrong, you pull out the race card.  we are done. 

[DaBurglar]

i gave you a source on the $22 trillion figure.i gave you a NY TIMES article to reference regarding charitable giving. i brought up birth stats to support my assertion that irresponsible behavior is encouraged by 'giving stuff' away. and,  typical of all liberals, when you wrong, you pull out the race card.  we are done. Oh we are done?   well, I'm not, sorry.....You just showed you are totally incapable of debating rationally and without emotions, and YOU are the one who played the RACE card (see, it works both ways.)   When you just plop a stat with the "added" detail concerning ethnic breakdown, THAT is bringing RACE into the conversation.  You could have simply stated the OVERALL birth rate for unmarried people and made the EXACT same point about "human irresponsibility"....by emphasizing that "70%" are black  versus "30%" white, you obviously sought to make a unstated (veiled) point about blacks being "MORE" irresponsible than whites.....otherwise, why make that distinction?Even still, its a pointless, unwarranted conclusion......NO way is it true that every single baby born to single parents (regardless of race creed color religion) is a example of "IRRESPONSIBLE" behavior!!!    I personally know many (well, at least 5) individuals (or unwed couples) who are raising children without being married and are NOT examples of irresponsible behavior.......it could even be argued that people who have abortions REGULARLY (or even just once) are the REAL irresponsible people, since a responsible person, upon learning they are pregnant (or in the male case, learning he is the father) chooses to have the baby and attempt to raise them as best as they can.   (SEE, I am in fact NOT a "liberal" as you insist, because I personally detest abortion, and regard it as a grave sin......however, I also adhere to the Christian tenet "judge not lest you be judged", and while I would never personally have anything to do with abortion and prefer that my taxes NOT be spent on abortions, I believe that it is between a person and GOD and that GOD will make things right in the end....that's another real problem with the Right wing republican part of 2016, their total hijacking of "PORTIONS" of the bible while ignoring the real message of christianity.)"Giving stuff away" (as you put it.....and what "Stuff" exactly are we talking about?) is NOT why people act irresponsibly....or are you going to tell me that the reason one third of Americans are OBESE is because modern medicine has so many ways to treat Diabetes and Heart Disease that most Americans decide to gorge on unhealthy decadent foods because, afterall, "My doctor will just give me a pill or do a surgery and voila!"    That is a totally EMPTY and BUNK argument.........you cannot make the correlation of all these single parent babies being born to what you call the "give away" policy of the US government because, simply put, THERE IS NO SUCH CORRELATION at all, so you just say "we are done."     And NO you did not provide any source......you just said "the Heritage foundation" says there has been 22 trillion dollars spent since blah blah blah  ......THAT is not a source.    Do what I did and actually LINK the article or source (or tell me what it is.....)   otherwise, it is just YOU as the "Source".    ANd by the way....using the Heritage Foundation as a Source is not exactly an impartial objective basis for an argument or debate.    But I'd still be willing to consider it, if you can just show me where it is......