L
laylow
Guest
Go to Africa and see if for yourself.
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Truly a non-response.
L
laylow
Guest
Ha ha ha…might be hard to concentrate with Hannity slobbering in the background.
S
steve-b
Guest
To your point,
AP as in Associate Press, ( no Trump supporter for sure) showed how food stamp participants dropped by 3.9 million. Obviously lots more poor people then who needed help even eating, are now eating much better without food stamps, under his presidency. AP FACT CHECK: Trump on drop in food stamp rolls.
Now AP didn’t say it that way. But what they said seemed to hurt THEM. For some reason it wasn’t reported by THEM, as good news. I don’t get it.
L
lonegreywolf20
Guest
Maybe below has something to do with that.
“Trump’s last budget proposed cutting SNAP by $213 billion over 10 years. The administration also has been pushing to give states more flexibility in implementing the program, including tightening work requirements for recipients.”
“Trump’s last budget proposed cutting SNAP by $213 billion over 10 years. The administration also has been pushing to give states more flexibility in implementing the program, including tightening work requirements for recipients.”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And you have accused me of being a troll.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
What is the choice that you are defending? It is the choice to kill an innocent child. Sorry, a mother does not have the right to kill her child. It may be legal, but it is not moral.
L
laylow
Guest
If that is true, then it is certainly good news for those Americans. And I do think that America should “come first” but not to the extreme that Trump seems to. Also some of the fixes that Trump has done do to some over-correction of agreements that are too tailored to helping other countries is good.
But I also think he has done a lot of harm to International relations. I am definitely no where near an expert on this, but the US is going to be known as the arrogant bully, who is going to throw their weight around and get their way. Sure it will work in the short term, but it is not a recipe for success long term.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I remember when Bill Clinton announced the “end of welfare as we know it”. Among other things, the congress passed, and he signed, legislation requiring welfare recipients to either work, be seeking work, show that they can’t work, or be in vocational training. Welfare recipients with children were exempted from that. Like a lot of things, various states found loopholes and wouldn’t require it. Bush tried to reinstate the Clinton requirements, but failed. Congress under Obama tried, but failed. So Trump is trying to get us back to Clinton’s position.
And Dems are complaining about it? What is he compelling reason why a person who is not caring for children, is not disabled should not be required to work, look for work, or train for work?
And Dems are complaining about it? What is he compelling reason why a person who is not caring for children, is not disabled should not be required to work, look for work, or train for work?
T
Teresa21
Guest
True- but I’m talking about in America- a place where until recently it has not been persecuted.
Without a president backing religious freedom we may well end up going under ground
Without a president backing religious freedom we may well end up going under ground
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Not really…but if the shoe fits…look, I was trying to lighten up a serious conversation a bit. I am not a fan of the far right or the far left. Right now, I guess I find the far right much more despicable. So yeah, assuming you are a Hannity fan is a pretty low blow, for which I will apologize for.
L
laylow
Guest
I am assuming you know that every pregnancy and birth damages a woman’s body?
But changing gears, do you think faith-healing is moral? As in trying to pray away a disease instead of seeking medical treatment for a child which ends up resulting in death?
L
lonegreywolf20
Guest
I never said those who can work, shouldn’t nor am I complaining about what I quoted.
Simply pointing out that it could be the reason.
Simply pointing out that it could be the reason.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Pregnancy and childbirth are natural functions for a female body. Pregnancy and chilbirth are rarely fatal in the United States. What does that have to do with killing a child? I would assume that you know that abortion damages a woman’s body?
Nope, let’s stay on topic.
J
JimG
Guest
Here are some pro-life accomplishments of the Trump administration:
S
steve-b
Guest
Could you be specificsteve-b:
If that is true, then it is certainly good news for those Americans. And I do think that America should “come first” but not to the extreme that Trump seems to.
Again, could you be specific
Again, could you be specific
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not a “Hannity fan”, though I do listen to him sometimes. I think he, himself, is kind of puerile, but he has some superlative staffers who have done some creditable investigation. But there’s nothing “low” about those who are much more taken with him.
There are other ways in which it enhances her health and longevity. Of possible interest, though, is that nuns’ longevity is extremely high on average, and they seem not to show the effects of Alzheimer’s even when they have significant plaques. Nobody knows why.
S
steve-b
Guest
Just a few points.
1. The Affordable Care Act in the end was going broke. THE, States were opting out of supporting it due to cost. it was NOT
The ACT, might have been a good idea in discussion, but it was an albatross in action.
When states won’t support it, then it’s over. That’s what happened.
2. The States opted out. AND That’s NOT the fault of the Republicans, since not one Republican voted for the Act. That ACT came to be when all 3 branches of govt were in Democrat hands. In fact it was not just a Democrat majority, but a SUPER MAJORITY. Do you know what that means? NO ONE could outvote the Democrats. They couldn’t lose on a vote. They had a monopoly. Thus the affordable Care Act came into being.
Some history of income tax rates at the top bracket Historical Income Tax Rates and Brackets, 1862-2013 - Tax Foundation from 1862 - 2013
Year / Rate
1862. 5%
1941 94%
1954. 91%
1964. 77%
1982 50%
1987. 38%
1988. 28%
1991. 31%
1993 39.6%
2001. 39.1%
2002. 38.6%
2013. 39.8%
Unemployment history Unemployment Rate by Year Since 1929, Inflation, GDP
keeping in mind, when the ones who offer jobs and start companies get taxed to death, that’s not positive for the economy nor jobs
But back to the topic. What about pro-life?
Last edited:
D
dandytree7771
Guest
I apologize, that was out of line and unchristian at the least in the way I worded it. ill delete it.
L
lonegreywolf20
Guest
Apology accepted. I have deleted my reply.
- Status