It should be easy for the Conservatives now they can take out their enemy "The Poor". Those poor people living in their double wide trailer better find a hiding place now ya'll hear.

Good it will make it easier for the Conservative to take out all those poor people that did not plan to lose their job and Bush starting wars that we could not pay for in our lifetime.

It should be easy for the Conservatives now they can take out their enemy "The Poor". Those poor people living in their double wide trailer better find a hiding place now ya'll hear.

*

What facts do you base your assertion that conservatives consider "the poor" their enemy and that they want to "take them out?"

You are my main info on that subject.

The Ryan Plan is my second source of info.

We have fewer and fewer mobile home parks, plus due to zoning and deed restrictions, manufactured homes are prohibited in most areas.

As many mobile home parks have been bought up for development, many former residents had to leave their mobile homes behind.

Many owners couldn't move them due to age, parks wouldn't accept them due to age, there was no available park space, or they couldn't afford moving costs, park entrance fees, setup fees etc.

Generally speaking, most mobile homes depreciate in value, so they don't pay enough in property taxes, plus many devalue neighboring properties.

None of this had anything to due with political party choices.

What facts do you base your assertion that conservatives consider "the poor" their enemy and that they want to "take them out?"

You are my main info on that subject.

The Ryan Plan is my second source of info.

*

I've never said or implied such a thing, and I don't feel that way.

So, you made it up.

Figures.

Paul Ryan wants to eliminate unnecessary spending.
He does not propose cutting help to people that truly need it; I listened to him yesterday explain his proposals, and President Obama is intentionally misrepresenting the proposals and cuts.

Some people choose to be poor by their personal choices.
It is their right to do so.

Those that don't, have options for getting help from the government and other charities.

Obama is taking out the poor in Afghanistan and Pakistan and he's using your money to do it.

Why don't you spend time addressing that issue, instead of a stupid theory that conservatives want to take out the poor at home.

That's a far fetched fart and it stinks!

"from the Government? How is that suppose to work if the government is saying the poor is the enemy? Since you chose to believe Ryan's reasons.

"Charities" Have you heard that charity donations are low because of so many people are in need? Again, the needy they are the enemy. What I find incredible is that you seem to truly believe that there is enough help out there. Or even worse is because you donate a few pennies it should be enough to relieve your mind that you have done enough. In my mind and heart if there is one child out there that has to go to bed hungry I feel it should not happen and I cannot give enough.

As I said the trailer parks will probably be the first target to cut down on those needy poor people looking for a handout. Looking for a handout since Ryan has such good reasons for cutting assistance to the poor.

You are right about it "stinks". It does stink that our Conservative government feel that cutting aid to the poor in their own country do not realize it "Stinks". It stinks so bad that even the religious community has spoken against the Plan.

Where is your proof these people are poor?

I haves explained my proof of what Conservative feel about their own poor people. Where is your proof that our American Soldiers are targeting poor in another country?

And the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' protests regarding Ryan's proposed budget.

In the letters, Bishops Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, and Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairmen of the Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace, respectively, urged Congress to resist proposed cuts in hunger and nutrition programs at home and abroad saying that "a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons."

On April 4, Bishop Blaire cautioned that "at a time when the need for assistance from [affordable housing] programs is growing, cutting funds for them could cause thousands of individuals and families to lose their housing and worsen the hardship of thousands more in need of affordable housing." He also reminded Congress that the Catholic community is one of the largest private, nonprofit providers of affordable housing in the country and is deeply involved in meeting the health housing and nutrition needs of families across the nation.

Bishops Blaire and Pates reaffirmed the "moral criteria to guide these difficult budget decisions" outlined in their March 6 budget letter:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects "the least of these" (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times...

Those that don't, have options for getting help from the government and other charities.

"from the Government? How is that suppose to work if the government is saying the poor is the enemy? Since you chose to believe Ryan's reasons.

"Charities" Have you heard that charity donations are low because of so many people are in need? Again, the needy they are the enemy. What I find incredible is that you seem to truly believe that there is enough help out there. Or even worse is because you donate a few pennies it should be enough to relieve your mind that you have done enough. In my mind and heart if there is one child out there that has to go to bed hungry I feel it should not happen and I cannot give enough.

As I said the trailer parks will probably be the first target to cut down on those needy poor people looking for a handout. Looking for a handout since Ryan has such good reasons for cutting assistance to the poor.

*

Marquest, I speak for what I "truly believe" and you don't know what you're talking about, you're running your mouth about what I believe and you have no idea.

You also have no business saying I "donate a few pennies."

Keep your comments about the topic and stop with the totally uncalled for hateful and nasty personal comments about me and stop speaking for me.

It would be nice if you could manage to relate your thoughts without making up what others believe, speaking for them, and being hatefully sarcastic.

It is not difficult if you remove pettiness and emotion from your posts.

Whenever someone responds to you the whining starts. It just gets old. Kids do not whine this much.

That will continue as long as you do that and your characterization of it as whining doesn't change the fact that I'm calling you out on what you do.

Give your opinion all you want, but you don't speak for me and stop with the speculating about how much I give to charity.

Ball's in your court.

This is so self evident I wonder why it needed bold type but then it is likely to get overlooked by the narcissistic so I've posted it again.

Still!

Psst! Marquest:

Not that it'll help you much, been ignoring them for years now, and they still don't get it.

Because I like to point out the obvious.

Like, really obviously!!

You need proof? Keep chewing gum, you do that well.

I must admit that I am a little confused by that question/comment to Brushworks.

You're doubting the people in Afghanistan suffering under the conditions of war are overwhelmingly poor? Am I understanding that correctly?

I'm not meaning to sound antagonistic here, but I think Brush is right. The country is very poor and unable to really defend itself against invaders or their weaponry, neither the citizens nor the governments. The drones are simply the latest in that line of weaponry.

Now while I understand the point you were trying to make, I don't understand the equivilency.

Your statement about drones making it easier to take out all the poor people in the USA was much more far fetched than Brushworks' retort that they were already taking out poor people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm not sure why you would then ask Brush for proof of that?? I think his retort about drones already being used in other countries was a valid one.

I'd post the chart, but unless a person has slept away the past 10 years, they already know the results.

If you have any doubts about how our government feel about the poor that are getting in their way..... they will not blink an eye to drop a drone on them.

Examples of what my country has done........
Do a search on these there are many instances in our history that prove my point. We have no moral compass and if you read enough of the post of how people feel about giving a kid a meal you should understand there are many that cannot see or feel any further than their front door or what Faux News tell them for the day.

-Tuskegee syphilis experiment
-Agent Orange
-At some point in the century, more than half of the states in the U.S. had programs that allowed for the sterilization of those the government deemed to poor or unfit to procreate.

Brush said.......Obama is taking out the poor in Afghanistan and Pakistan and he's using your money to do it.

So yes I want proof of where this comment is substantiated.
Is it assumed all Afghanistan and Pakistan people are poor? Are you both thinking that every single person in these countries are poor?

The Conservative are making it clear they do not want social programs for the poor. It is stated here in HT all the time of how they are not responsible, they did not plan so they are poor don't ask them for any money.

They are poor it is their fault they did not plan. The parents and their kids do not need any social programs. The next step would be oops a drone dropped on them. Where do you have the poorest? They certainly are not mixed in with the middle class neighborhoods.

So I suggested they would pick the trailer parks. They are isolated and no one cares if they eat or get health care. Who cares.

Ahh...

So this has become a nitpicking contest. If there is even one person who is not poor that has been killed in Afghanistan or Pakistan, then you feel sure that poor people have not been killed there... with your tax dollars.

Gee Brushworks, guess you can't argue with that, can ya?

Brush statement was NOT Afghanistan and Pakistan citizens.

Do you see the difference? Is that hard to defend? If you know they are POOR and you have documentation to support that statement bring it! If you do not have a answer you cannot call it nitpicking. Say "I do not know the answer. I made it up"

I have given my reasons why I feel poor citizens of the US will be sacrificed from past deeds.

I would like proof that either of you that these are poor people.

Well, yes, it was. Brush said: taking out the poor in Afghanistan and Pakistan and he's using your money to do it.

But I'm more than willing to let you believe that the people who have been dying in those countries have been the wealthy people. No skin off my nose.

I would question how well any North American is acquainted with the society and culture in the various districts of Pakistan - or those in Afghanistan for that matter. Are we judging by our standards, or the relative standards within Pakistan and/or Afghanistan?

Brush stated that poor people were being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan already.

I think if we start adding our own qualifiers in order to somehow prove Brush's statement wrong, it's just nitpicking. How poor? Were they all poor? Were they poor relative to our poor?

All this just to deem Brush as what, a liar? Uninformed?

Seriously Nancy, if you look at JUST his retort, what do you think?

What I was wondering is the way the statement was wrote that they were being killed because they are poor under our standards or their standards.

I would assume Brush was speaking under our standards since that would be the familiar to Americans. Unless you live in a culture or have visited that country you do not have a reference of their poor vs our poor. My experience of traveling to other countries is I thought they were poor and in fact it was considered middle class under their standards.

Regardless of our poor or their poor. My point was that the US do not have a problem of throwing poor societies under the bus if it serves their purpose. As you can see from past deeds and today's thought of the Conservative party they are throwing the poor under the bus when it comes to who will be sacrificed.

The topic is "Drones will be droning you soon" so I would think that the Conservative party would hit the trailer parks first. The poor are the enemy.

In other words, stop taking the attention away from this theory that American citizens MAY be bombed by their own government, in order to focus on the fact that people in other countries are ALREADY being bombed by that same government. And I'll use whatever qualifiers I need to in order to make you stop.

Oh, and being able to afford a plate of rice is considered middle class under their standards, so they aren't poor.

Marquest, in your travels, did you learn why there exists a stereotype of the self-absorbed American?

Agree!

I do not understand how you continue to use words or descriptions of what is being said. First I am calling people liars now there is a storm.

Okay, storm, liars have ended.

Marquest, in your travels, did you learn why there exists a stereotype of the self-absorbed American?

It depended on which country or island I visited. Example of a few places I have visited....
-Aruba was really into the ugly American. Every time they served me a meal I would not have doubted that they had spit in the food before they put it in front of me. lol Beautiful Island though. But I would never go back.
-Mexico did not give me the feeling that I was the ugly American but because I speak Spanish I think that helped. If the country feel you have enough respect to speak their language you get a little more respect. I was in Mexico City so not many English speaking citizens. When I was in tourist areas it was not a problem. But when I spoke Spanish I got better service and attitude. Loved it so much I have gone back 4 times.
-Germany was not a problem. Like them and the country only visited once.

So I think it is not a unsubstantiated stereotype impression. We go to other countries and assume we should be accepted with open arms.

I don't understand why you are being accused of being self-absorbed as one can acknowledge what the U.S. (and its allies) has/have done to the poor of the world, and what the U.S. government has done/is currently doing to its own poor. Sometimes it's a two-for; the U.S. poor are sent to fight the poor in other countries.

Nancy that is funny I got a chuckle when you brought that to my attention. I did not think I was being accused of being self-absorbed. I thought the question was related to my travel and what I observed when I traveled to other countries.

I took the question as an inquiry because so many people ask me because they know I have traveled extensively.

So I call people liars, I cause storms, and I am self-absorbed. Being called names do not bother me because I know my intentions, what I am and who I am so I guess I am self-absorbed but I like to think of it as self confidence. Some people are way to insecure.

A little more self confidence and the stuff people say will go right over your head. You will think they cannot possible be talking about me. lol

Regardless I stand by if you live in a trail park look out if they have drones headed for us if you are poor and if they think you are in a concentrated poor area they will come for you. Our Gov't is what it is they are back to looking at the budget deficit again and the poor are getting in their way.