2-year-old shot in mob brawl in S. Philly

Yeah, because Democrats never demand more aid for the poor.

 

But, then progressives would lose power and glory. The pseudo-religion of secular humanist Marxism would be diminished. Better to keep Kilidelphia on the dole in Lefto-bizzaro-world.
_

 

tell us the last time republicans were in office in Philly

 

Ignoring the fact that the state with the highest gun homocides is Louisiana run by a republican, what would you do to stop this?

 

I think most guilt ridden white libs just don't think blacks can make it in America without their help.

 

Da thugs are outta control, something must be done. Where's Paul Kersey when you need him?

Similar incident in Akron a couple of months ago. 11 year old girl killed by stray bullet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDc5mWL8gM"]11 year old Akron girl killed by stray bullet - YouTube[/ame]

 

Cutting off funds may not be the answer, but giving people a purpose, so they have better things to do, might not be a bad idea.

 

Rural shootings? Or urban shootings?

 

That, and progressives can't make it without racial strife and class warfare.

_

 

Welfare reform under Clintone worked like a charm. B.O. undid that in one of his first acts as prez.

 

Honestly, many just went on social security disability.


_

 

Where those individuals most likely should have been to begin with. But many also went to WORK.

 

Take your pick .

 

Just for the record which bill was it that he signed that undid that.

 

Clinton had a booming economy, by no fault or credit to himself. He was, much as it pains me to say it, a decent game manager that didn't mess with a good thing. When things are good most of the nation doesn't care what the government is doing.

 

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me? Was it the democrats cheering the death of the uninsured? Is it the democrats who want to do away with welfare and other safety nets, while giving tax breaks to the rich? Is it the democrats who want to privatize education so the poor cant afford it? Is it the democrats who call poor people lazy and cry about personal responsability, even if they are working multiple minimum wage jobs, which is largely all that's available to them? Is it democrats that want to force poor teenagers to have babies they don't want, ensuring they'll never be able to better themselves?

Give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break

 

Nor was it Republicans.

Everyone cheered when Ron Paul mentioned personal responsibility.

As for calling poor people lazy I'll accept the blame for that because I do it all the time.

Far too few poor people are working hard and making good choices in their lives.

Because if they were most of them would be on the way up instead of anchored to the hood and their government welfare checks.

 

Then who was it?

 

Yeah, I used to think like you, when i was about 18. Then, like most people, I grew up.

Please provide a link of people cheering for deaths related to no insurance. Maybe those uninsured should have thought about getting a job? Job?? Blashphemy!

It's cute that you think people use welfare solely as a safety net, and not as a lifestyle. Hey, let's give them more of everything! Poor things.

How many jobs are created by welfare recipients or the poor? Here's a hint, zero. How many are created by the rich? Here's a hint, nearly all. So yeah, let's keep raising their taxes so they can move their businesses elsewhere. Since libs are too dumb and lazy to work anyway, I can see why they don't care if all the jobs leave.

Maybe teenagers should concentrate more on school, athletics, and activities, and a little less on spreading their legs. Of course I don't blame them, since after 60 years of liberalism destroying the family unit, most of these teenagers need Missing Persons to find at least one of their parents.

So, you give us all a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break

 

Hoodrats ?

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao[/ame]

Because it is a safety net, if some abuse it as a lifestyle, deal withthose people .

Total BS if you think the money spent by these people doesnt create jobs.

More BS, coorporations and smaller bussineses create most jobs.

 

Any evidence that most people disagree with your position which is not, of course, the position that the OP was taking?

 

Well whoever said liberals are helpless and hopeless sure knew what they were talking about.

So people cheering the fact that people should take personal responsibility somehow translates to them cheering for a death? lmao.

If some abuse it? So you would support a term on welfare for say 1 year? That seems like it's plenty of safety net for someone to get back on their feet. And I assume you're also in favor of drug testing welfare recipients right? Those are good ways to deal with those 'few' people abusing the system right?

Cool, next time i hear of someone needing a job, I'll send them down to some Section 8 housing, since those tenants are sure to be hiring.

How many welfare reciepients run corporations or own small businesses?

Helpless and hopeless.

 

Then you didnt see it trough the end.

the question was "So society should let him die ?" and thats get several "yeah"

A term: yes perhaps even shorter then a year.

Drug testing: only if anyone recieving gouvernement aid has to take them.

Thats not what I said, again do you think the money spent bu unemployed doesnt employ people?

Your arguments? Yes they ignore reality.