Americans who hate America

[Mike32ct]

Politically incorrect as it may sound, culture and race an inextricably linked. That's why multi-racial societies simply do not work. The American "melting pot" theory is a crock of sh!t. The "melting pot" worked when all immigrants were European and white. They may have spoken different languages but they had the same religion and very similar cultural values. When you start introducing other races into the equation, it all goes to sh!t. And it's not because other races are "bad people" or inferior. They are just different, in very major ways. And differences lead to disharmony.

Understood. There is no doubt that it is easier for similar peoples to get along. But, more specifically, I think the issue today is also about assimilation versus multiculturalism. Assimilation can work when people really WANT to fit in. They keep their "cultures" for inside the home, and fit in with their host country's culture in their day to day lives.

On the other hand, multiculturalism is a total failure because it encourages people to NOT fit in with their host country. Basically, you set up a mini home country neighborhood and forget about fitting in with the country you are geographically located in.

The American melting pot worked initially because it was based on assimilation. Today, it follows more of the failed multicultural (no offense but I must say current European) model. Some people in America today don't really want to be Americans. Years ago, virtually everyone who came to the U.S. REALLY wanted to become an American.

 

[user43770]

Again.. you're making a cultural issue a racial issue. You're ignoring basic cause and effect.

Race is not the "cause" of a particular culture. Environment, education, upbringing and normative cues are what cause culture. They are only related because people of certain races are more likely to be born into and raised in particular environments by particular people.

So to correct your statement..."When you start introducing other [cultures that refuse to integrate] into the equation, it all goes to sh!t"

Also, blacks were segregated, denied opportunities for education and marginalized for 100 years after they were "freed".. which basically lead to them developing their own culture. Had the freed slaves been accepted into mainstream white society right away.. we might see a different America. Which is why African immigrants that come to the U.S. usually perform much better than their American counterparts.

I don't know if I'd go that far..

I just read about a black out in South Africa. It would seem that after the white genocide, they can't maintain the infrastructure these days.

I also read where Mugabe is asking for white farmers to come back for timeshare farming. Seems that after they stole the farms from white people, they couldn't maintain them.

Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Understood. But, more specifically, I think the difference is assimilation versus multiculturalism. Assimilation can work when people really WANT to fit in. They keep their "cultures" for inside the home, and fit in with their host country's culture in their day to day lives.

On the other hand, multiculturalism is a total failure because it encourages people to NOT fit in with their host country. Basically, you set up a mini home country neighborhood and forget about fitting in with the country you are geographically located in.

Our melting pot worked initially because it was based on assimilation. Today, it follows more of the failed multicultural model. Some people in America today don't really want to be Americans. Years ago, virtually everyone who came to the U.S. REALLY wanted to become an American.

There's two, really three issues going on today. Multiculturalism encouraging immigrants to not assimilate. And unlike the past immigration, today there's the difference of bringing primarily non-westerners and third worlders who can hardly be assimilated to begin with. Third, too many legal immigrants are being allowed in every year, over 1 million, plus nearly a million of illegal aliens are basically encouraged to cross the border. The US can't assimilate immigrants at that rate even if it was trying.

Immigration today is from different cultures than in the past and probably not being screened for quality. And of course we have the liberal "divide the groups" of multicultural policy today. America is becoming overpopulated and there is not the economic opportunities of the past. There's no good reason to be allowing all this immigration in now from anywhere, and I don't think there's ever a good reason to allow in so many historically non-traditional immigrants.

 

[Mike32ct]

There's two, really three issues going on today. Multiculturalism encouraging immigrants to not assimilate. And unlike the past immigration, today there's the difference of bringing primarily non-westerners and third worlders who can hardly be assimilated to begin with.

True. Some cultures are SO different from ours that assimilation is bordering on impossible.

The other thing is that the U.S. was greatly respected years ago. Today, we are hated in most of the world. So we went from having immigrants who love this country and can't wait to become Americans to, dare I say, some that move here while continuing to hate us.



Third, too many legal immigrants are being allowed in every year, over 1 million, plus nearly a million of illegal aliens are basically encouraged to cross the border. The US can't assimilate immigrants at that rate even if it was trying.

Absolutely. As I said, we need to seal the border to stop illegal immigration. We also need to seriously cap the number of legal immigrants too because there are not enough jobs or other resources for them.

Immigration today is from different cultures than in the past and probably not being screened for quality. And of course we have the liberal "divide the groups" of multicultural policy today. America is becoming overpopulated and there is not the economic opportunities of the past. There's no good reason to be allowing all this immigration in now from anywhere, and I don't think there's ever a good reason to allow in so many historically non-traditional immigrants.

Agreed.

 

[Jaylan]

Mike,

You can blame American foreign policy and our meddling in sovereign nations for why so many people hate us nowadays. Can you imagine how different of international image would be if we never got involved in that Israel - Palestine mess decades ago?

Ever since the USA gave up isolationism and got involved in World Wars and foreign nation building, international opinion of us has changed greatly.

 

[Embers84]

Red States Most Dependent On Federal Government

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/busines...ent-on-the-federal-government.html/?a=viewall

http://www.ibtimes.com/which-states-depend-most-us-federal-government-1564360



Alabama: The welfare state


http://www.timesdaily.com/opinion/e...cle_ff166ac8-c4f3-11e3-a83b-0017a43b2370.html


A study by a financial analysis company shows Alabama is among the most dependent on federal welfare to keep state government and services functioning.

Elected officials in Alabama like to tout the state's low taxes as an inducement to attract business investment, but a look behind the curtain of the publicity machine reveals a scene that's not so enticing.

WalletHub reported recently that, based on its analysis, Alabama is the third-most dependent state on federal money. For every dollar Alabama pays in federal taxes, it receives the equivalent of $3.28, according to the report.

Alabama lives and dies by the sales tax, a regressive arrangement written into the state's 1901 Constitution to protect large landowners from property taxes. As a result, the working poor and the middle class bear too heavy a burden funding governmental services.

Alabama, according to a separate WalletHub report, has the second-lowest real estate taxes in the nation. Property values tend to remain more constant during economic downturns, which, if taxed fairly, provide a more stable source of revenue when sales and income taxes decline.

Politicians for decades have stressed the importance of adequate school funding, highways and other services, but time has proved it was only lip service. WalletHub ranked Alabama the 12th best state to be a taxpayer, but we beg to differ on that point.

Alabama might be tax-friendly for the wealthy, but it's no bargain for everyone else. Paying high sales taxes on a $20,000-a-year salary is not very friendly compared to someone who earns $2 million.

Efforts to rewrite the Constitution have failed to gain traction, thanks no doubt to the special interests that benefit from the status quo. But the tax code is in desperate need of changes that more evenly distribute the tax burden and capture revenue from within the state to fund state services.

Those who trade in the tea party rallying cry that they are taxed enough already might want to re-examine their position in the light of Alabama's dependence on federal welfare. Take that money away, as some would like to do, and the state would collapse into Second World squalor.

Maybe Alabama's politicians have figured out they can keep taxes artificially low knowing the federal government will step in and fill some of the financial gaps with taxpayer money from other states. They had better hope the rest of the nation's taxpayers don't figure out they are subsidizing a state that refuses to take responsibility for itself. That would be a taxpayer rebellion Alabama could ill afford.

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/red-states-more-dependent-government-money

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...entage-of-state-general-revenue-(large)_0.png

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-federal-aid-percentage-state-general-revenue




Some 15% of U.S. Uses Food Stamps

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/01/some-15-of-u-s-uses-food-stamps/

Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in August, as the number of recipients hit 45.8 million.

Food stamp rolls have risen 8.1% in the past year, the Department of Agriculturereported, though the pace of growth has slowed from the depths of the recession.

The number of recipients in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), may continue to rise in coming months as families continue to struggle with high unemployment and September’s data will likely include disaster assistance tied to the destruction and flooding caused by Hurricane Irene.

Mississippi reported the largest share of its population relying on food stamps, more than 21%. One in five residents in New Mexico, Tennessee, Oregon and Louisiana also were food stamp recipients.

Food stamp rolls exploded during the downturn, which began in late 2007.

Even after the recession came to its official end in June 2009, families continued to tap into food assistance as unemployment remained high and those lucky enough to find jobs were often met with lower wages.

States also made changes to make it easier for residents to tap into the program, such as waiving requirements that limited the value of assets food stamp recipients could own.




Americans struggle to feed their families

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/w...-check/americans-struggle-feed-their-families

Tens of millions of Americans feed their families with help from food stamps and subsidized school lunches. A new report from Gallup shows that nearly 20 percent of Americans have struggled this year to pay for food.

Frank Newport is the editor-in-chief at Gallup and joins us for our weekly Attitude Check. He says Gallup surveys 1,000 Americans every day, and one of the daily questions is: "Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?"

Newport says Mississippi has the highest percentage of residents -- 25 percent -- who responded YES to that question, but he points to the entire South as a region that has struggled with money for food.

North Dakota had the fewest YES responses, with only 9.6 percent of respondents saying they had lacked money to buy food. Newport says, "We've all seen the pictures of the huge oil and gas boom repurcussions going on up in North Dakota. Well, it certainly means there are fewer people struggling to buy food."

Newport says this summer's drought and the resulting rise in food prices will likely make it even tougher for residents in the South.

 

[Embers84]

It's hard to tell if you are a leftist troll or a just an old-fashioned retard.

Not one law abiding citizen lost their right to bear arms under Clinton and Obama.

Embers,

I hate both libs and cons for different reasons sometimes, and other times for the same reasons.

Your pointing out the faults in conservatives (some of which are just twisted perceptions of reality) does not absolve the libs from their ownership in the destruction.

In short, if all you have is "cons do it too", then you have no rebuttal.

An Executive Order is a right given to the President by the Founding Fathers. Obviously they felt the President should have some authority over Congress in certain situations and they granted him that privilege.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy on the right showing that Republican Presidents issued more Executive orders than Democrats.

Of course they all do it, since it's the right of the President to issue such a order when he feels it's necessary. There is nothing wrong with that no matter who is in office.

Every President has issued an Executive Order during his Presidency, some more so than others. For right wingers to call President Obama "Emperor Obama" for issuing Executive Orders is purely hypocritical when they were just fine when George W Bush and Reagan had issued a lot more.

It's not "trampling the Constitution" when it's a President's right to issue an Executive Order and every single President has done so.

The right likes to lie and act like this is something new, that President Obama invented Executive Orders himself and that no other President has ever done it before.

Don't really blame you for the above windfart, there's no rational refutation possible to Tits' and my posts utterly and completely debunking the old "red state socialism" canard... and for all here to see too. Awwwww, sucks to be you.

So a poll by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (now apparently the Campbell Institute) at Syracuse University is a "RW blogger that no one has ever heard of?" How about the NPR Poll that got similar percentage responses as the Maxwell Poll, is NPR a "right wing blogger?" Just gets better and better. Do you have no shame at all with respect to what you post here?

I've already refuted your biased poll that has skewed numbers. You just don't like what you've read from what I posted. The Gallup Poll, WalletHub, SNAP data, and actual Government Census and Caseload Data refute the "Maxwell Poll" and your right wing rhetoric.

All the data shows that Red States take in the most Food Stamps and are more dependent on money from the Federal Government than Blue States.

All of these links show actual government data, graphs, charts that refute your false right wing rhetoric.



Here's Rupert's own Wall Street Journal showing how Red States lead in using food stamps. Those Red States look really dark red to me. How about you?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/01/some-15-of-u-s-uses-food-stamps/


Red States More Dependent on the Federal Government. Full Research Analysis with State by State maps that refutes your rhetoric.

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/


SNAP: Data shows that Red States take in more Food Stamps

http://www.urban.org/safety-net-almanac/snap/Graphic-Display.cfm?GraphicID=10

Source: Caseload data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; state population from American FactFinder, table B01003 (2011 ACS 1-year estimates).

Note: This graph displays the number of people receiving SNAP benefits divided by state population.


Government Data shows Red States with more Food Stamps and dependency on the Federal Government with charts, graphs, numbers, nationwide congressional districts maps, full data.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-08.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-08.pdf
http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_map_congdist_2010-2011.pdf
http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_2012.pdf




Who Is On Food Stamps, By State

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/food-stamp-snap-benefits-enrollment-participation-totals-map.html

Most recent data indicates about 47.5 million Americans are on food stamps, with enrollment varying greatly from state to state.

The number of participants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, rose sharply during the Great Recession. Enrollment has since stabilized, but the total applying for SNAP benefits has yet to recede in most states.

Nationwide, more than one in seven Americans receive SNAP benefits.

Parts of the South are responsible for the largest share of people who are on food stamps. Mississippi recorded the highest participation rate of any state in fiscal year 2012, with about 22 percent of the population on food stamps. By comparison, only 6 percent of Wyoming residents received SNAP benefits.

Participation rates for those who are on food stamps differ in each state, partly due to differences in eligibility requirements and how states administer SNAP. Of course, states with more low-income households also have more of their population eligible for food stamps, further explaining higher participation rates.

Embers extends his creds as a lefty shill by showing he can present some free floating 'data' to confirm his biases.

You're a low-grade Mouth-breather E.

Go read DailyKos and imagine it's facts.

LOL

The Right Wing Wall Street Journal is "free floating biased" 'data'? :crackup:

Government Census Data, Dept.of Agriculture Data, an Independent Financial Analysis Company, and the National Accredited Gallup Poll is biased "free floating" data? :crackup:

Keep living in denial.

 

[Tictac]

Embers extends his creds as a lefty shill by showing he can present some free floating 'data' to confirm his biases.

You're a low-grade Mouth-breather E.

Go read DailyKos and imagine it's facts.

LOL

 

[Bokanovsky]

Also, blacks were segregated, denied opportunities for education and marginalized for 100 years after they were "freed".. which basically lead to them developing their own culture.

Same thing was done to the Jews for centuries and they, too, developed their own culture as a result (a culture that allowed them to become the wealthiest and most politically powerful group of people in America). What explains the drastically different ways in which Jews and blacks have responded to adverse conditions, if not race?

 

[Mike32ct]

Mike,

You can blame American foreign policy and our meddling in sovereign nations for why so many people hate us nowadays. Can you imagine how different of international image would be if we never got involved in that Israel - Palestine mess decades ago?

Very true. But I think our SINGLE biggest mistake was removing Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal dictator for a REASON. He keep the violent extremists in check. Removing him created a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to spread.


Ever since the USA gave up isolationism and got involved in World Wars and foreign nation building, international opinion of us has changed greatly.

Agreed. I'm mostly an isolationist. However, I can certainly support going to bat for our traditional allies like UK, France, Australia, etc. I think we did the right thing in WWII.

But this more recent meddling and nation building is madness. Wanting to remove Assad in Syria is just as ridiculous.

Also, do I give a flying F about Ukraine? Not at all.

But anyway, let me shift away from foreign policy so the thread about the US doesn't get too far off track.

 

[Bokanovsky]

The American melting pot worked initially because it was based on assimilation. Today, it follows more of the failed multicultural (no offense but I must say current European) model. Some people in America today don't really want to be Americans. Years ago, virtually everyone who came to the U.S. REALLY wanted to become an American.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If you look at the old non-English immigrant groups (i.e. Irish, Scotts, Italians, Germans, Dutch) you will see that many of them were quite proud of their cultural identities and were in no hurry to forget their roots in order to fit in and become American. Martin Van Buren, the 8th president of the United States, was of Dutch descent and spoke English as a second language even though his ancestors had been living in the U.S./British North America for two centuries.

What's important is that the culture of those early immigrant groups differed from mainstream American culture only in superficial ways. In contrast, today's immigrant groups usually have drastically different cultural values. And I don't think it's a particularly good idea for those immigrants to consciously force themselves to assimilate and become "American". That would lead to many of them developing an inferiority complex and self-loathing tendencies. Assimilation should be a natural process, not something that you force yourself through.

 

[Mike32ct]

I'm not sure I agree with that. If you look at the old non-English immigrant groups (i.e. Irish, Scotts, Italians, Germans, Dutch) you will see that many of them were quite proud of their cultural identities and were in no hurry to forget their roots in order to fit in and become American. Martin Van Buren, the 8th president of the United States, was of Dutch descent and spoke English as a second language even though his ancestors had been living in the U.S./British North America for two centuries.

What's important is that the culture of those early immigrant groups differed from mainstream American culture only in superficial ways. In contrast, today's immigrant groups usually have drastically different cultural values. And I don't think it's a particularly good idea for those immigrants to consciously force themselves to assimilate and become "American". That would lead to many of them developing an inferiority complex and self-loathing tendencies. Assimilation should be a natural process, not something that you force yourself through.

Assimilation certainly can't be "forced." I agree with that. We can't pass a law that says, "Act more American." However, I think that we should have declared English as the official language years ago. (It's too late for that now.) That would have been the only thing that I would have "forced."

But at the end of the day, the SINGLE biggest problem in the US is that we are TOO DIVIDED. Despite his faults, I think one reason that Reagan was so popular was that he was quite good at uniting Americans.

 

[Poon King]

The problem with your argument that race doesn't cause culture is you're blaming some other race for a race's culture. Europeans succeeded for 100's of years in the worst of conditions. While others left to their own devices have never been nothing but third world and never will be anything but that.

Your argument is basically a nature vs nurture or genetics vs environment, and you're arguing it's 100% environment. Much research has shown that behavior and personality is at least half genetic and certainly influence culture.

You've basically stated that other races and cultures can't be successful unless they form a parasitic relationship with whites. For example, if you segregated whites from other races, the whites would be better off in every way.

Not exactly. Europeans had to live in harsher environments than most other races. So they developed a culture that allowed them to thrive, progress, and manipulate the environment around them. This took thousands of years btw. Much longer than black slaves in America have been free.

Human cultures coming from warmer climates are often more primitive simply because life is easier in such environments. When life is easy, there is no incentive to think hard or work hard.

The genetic argument doesn't hold up because there is often more genetic diversity between two people of the same race than two people of a different race. RACE is mostly a divisional social construct to divide people. Similar to religion.

 

[Poon King]

I don't know if I'd go that far..

I just read about a black out in South Africa. It would seem that after the white genocide, they can't maintain the infrastructure these days.

I also read where Mugabe is asking for white farmers to come back for timeshare farming. Seems that after they stole the farms from white people, they couldn't maintain them.

Draw your own conclusion.

Obvious difference in education and culture. Similar to how the white settlers didn't "maintain" anything from the Native American culture when they did a similar genocide.

Why would the black South Africans who never accepted white culture suddenly have white knowledge?

 

[speed dawg]

Parts of the South are responsible for the largest share of people who are on food stamps. Mississippi recorded the highest participation rate of any state in fiscal year 2012, with about 22 percent of the population on food stamps. By comparison, only 6 percent of Wyoming residents received SNAP benefits.

Bad example, chief.

From census.gov on Mississippi:

White alone, percent definition and source info White alone, percent, 2013 (a) 59.8%
Black or African American alone, percent definition and source info Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a) 37.4%

Guess where that 22% food stamp sector lies? I'll give you 2 guesses but you won't need but 1. With that guess I just saved you, guess what political party that bunch affiliates with.

Numbers can be twisted to fit ANY argument.

 

[dasein]

Red States Most Dependent On Federal Government

Repetitive, already addressed and throroughly debunked, unresponsive. You merely cutpaste the same debunked wallethub "study" again... and again... and again.

I want everyone on this forum to see through what you are doing here as well, and see what a dishonest hack you are. ALL of the first SIX links he repeats here are based on the SAME wallethub "study." And WTF is "wallet hub" anyway? Seems he wants to ground his ENTIRE claim on this source, yet scoffs at Syracuse University as a "RW blog?" ROFL. I have already debunked wallethub's methodology entirely in my long post prior, and you of course ignore this entirely.

That's right folks, in an effort to fool you into believing there are all these "different" sources out there for his debunked claim about blue state "givers" and red state "takers," this transparent partisan hack/troll has linked the same thing SIX times in succession, all based on the same faulty, erroneous data. Just see for yourselves, right there in the links themselves. Were you fooled by his lie?

Moreover, he totally ignores the CNBC source I linked that tells you exactly which states have the most welfare recipients, that includes all the many welfare programs out there, not just food stamps, which are a relatively small chunk of change in the welfare world.

And it appears the hack is actually ADMITTING, even BRAGGING about the explosion of food stamps in the Obama Administration. Well, troll, we already know how bad the economy is in Obamaworld, do offer us some more evidence of this please.

Then he goes on about Alabama and welfare, again from wallethub, plainly showing that source's very partisan colors, and again in an attempt to distract from the FACT that almost all the top ten welfare states are BLUE.

Then he tries to shift the goalposts to "federal aid as a % of state revenues," which is NOT a measure of states "giving" or "taking" because state revenues themselves have little to do with either concept. Moreover, his graphs don't even make a point, as you can plainly see by looking at the maps that the %s are all over the place, and not much different between states. Finally, he again links the EXACT SAME THING TWICE here, thinking he will fool you with his "many sources." In actuality, of his first EIGHT links, there are only TWO sources reflected. Again, did he fool you with his lie?

So the upshot is he's grounded his argument on one fallacious, partisan source I have debunked entirely, and he ignored entirely, and another source that doesn't back up his claim at all.

His other referenced sources don't say ANYTHING about overall state giving and taking, just food stamps, already dealt with above. Then he dishonestly claims "all these sources" are superior when he's only really got TWO sources, one debunked and one that clearly doesn't back his argument.

So dismiss this complete hack/troll/liar and everything he posts. I won't bother to deconstruct many more of his posts, as they are all cut from the same cloth.

But to repeat the takeaway, as stated and ignored, it's SILLY and ABSURD, pure partisan hackery, intended to instill resentment in the lowest common denominator audience, to compare whole states other than at election time on a red/blue map. 1. What makes a whole state "red" or "blue" may be only a small percentage of votes. 2. As stated, most US states are huge, diverse economies with vastly different and disparate economic conditions in various places within their borders, larger than many other WHOLE COUNTRIES. So trying to peddle "state-hate" is a massive overgeneralization that only a moron would buy.

A comparison of CITIES would be somewhat more useful in terms of giving and taking, and even more useful would be how welfare recipients VOTE, which the SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Maxwell poll, conducted over SEVERAL YEARS, clearly and reasonably DOCUMENTS, as Tits posted. Welfare recipients vote DEMOCRAT by huge margins, but did we really need a university study to know that? I didn't.

 

[dasein]

I've already refuted your biased poll that has skewed numbers. You just don't like what you've read from what I posted. The Gallup Poll, WalletHub, SNAP data, and actual Government Census and Caseload Data refute the "Maxwell Poll" and your right wing rhetoric.

No you f-ing haven't refuted anything. You called the Maxwell poll conducted by the political department at Syracuse University over several years an "unknown, made-up RW blog," and even arguendo, none of the duplicative sources you link in ANY post here addresses the issue of how welfare recipients VOTE, as the Maxwell poll does. Moreover, as posted, an NPR poll found similar high %s of Democrat voters among welfare recipients as the Maxwell Poll did.

Then you go on to repeat and repeat your same debunked wallethub (where is that from, the BULLSH!T DEPARTMENT at "Wallethub University?") partisan source. Already dealt with the rest of your ignorant, lying, trolling, shenanigans in the post immediately above this one. You LOSE.

 

[Embers84]

You LOSE

No, you lost and you still believe in the lies when you are proven wrong. The Gov. census data, Dept. Of Agriculture, Gallup Poll shows that you are wrong even if you don't want to believe WalletHub. All the stats and evidence is there. Even the right wing Wall Street Journal shows you to be wrong. What more do you need?

What's the point of taking a national census and a national accredited accurate Gallup Poll if right wingers like you refuse to believe the data?

The South has the poorest counties and States in the country. They are overwhelmingly Republican. That is a fact. You don't think they are getting Federal Government help? :crackup:

Take a road trip to the South and see who is using the food stamps and applying for Government resources. It's not all the blacks when whites get just as hungry. Whites are going to take advantage of the programs too when they are available.

Guess where that 22% food stamp sector lies?

A Red State is still on the dole taking in the most Federal money from the Government that you right wingers claim is bad. All the Red States do it. What's the problem?

I don't care about the hypocrisy of the right.

You should care about the hypocrisy on the right. They are spreading false information to you. They are the ones lying about Executive Orders making it sound like President Obama is the only man that used them. Then gullible people believe in the spin and repeat it like robots all over the place.

That same hypocrisy always crosses fences when the "other team" is using the same playbook. BOTH parties are guilty of violating the constitution, in different ways.

There shouldn't be any hypocrisy when it's a right given to the President to use Executive Orders when he deems is necessary.

And again on your second point, there is EVERYTHING wrong with executive orders when they violate law. This is not a monarchy and laws apply to everyone, including the executive branch.

The same could be said about Grover Cleveland and other Presidents that used them. There were no laws violated, it's only a temporary Order. I would rather have the invaders be held accountable paying taxes being responsible citizens, than sneaking around breaking the law paying nothing as they did under George W Bush and previous Presidents.

Again, the President has the power of executive orders, so long as it does not violate law. Dismissing the entire legal process for invaders is breaking the law.

The invaders were already here for a long time breaking the law. What are you going to do? Have a trail of tears like they did with the Indians? Who's going to go around rounding them all up? Do you know how much money that would cost to do that?

They are entering a legal process. They need to be responsible citizens paying their way to stay. That is the deal the President layed out. That's more than any Republican President did, they let them stay here being illegal looking the other way talking in rhetoric instead of writing any new law.

 

[Bokanovsky]

No you f-ing haven't refuted anything. You called the Maxwell poll conducted by the political department at Syracuse University over several years an "unknown, made-up RW blog," and even arguendo, none of the duplicative sources you link in ANY post here addresses the issue of how welfare recipients VOTE, as the Maxwell poll does. Moreover, as posted, an NPR poll found similar high %s of Democrat voters among welfare recipients as the Maxwell Poll did.

Embers gets owned again.

 

[Bokanovsky]

The South has the poorest counties and States in the country. They are overwhelmingly Republican. That is a fact. You don't think they are getting Federal Government help? :crackup:

The South is not "overwhelmingly" Republication. In states like Georgia, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, and even Texas, Obummer got over 40-48% of the vote. This means that close to half the people who live in the South actually vote Democrat. Those are your welfare southerners.