Now this is disingenuous because no matter how you cut it it means that he at one point did, and now doesn't. Sure we can laud his hard work etc etc but the fact still remains that the way it's phrased is that at one point he did need those services or did indeed use them. And here's the kicker: that's why they are there, to help people so that they may eventually not need them. This should be a huge "duh."
As pnwmystery stated earlier, I think you have a very loose grasp of the English language.
No see, I realize that some social programs have worked.
You read between lines that simply aren't there, my friend.
Wow. You seem to want to add a bunch of parameters to the equation that nobody is talking about. Maybe make a new thread about all those things and I'll be right there.
Do you hold that same fear with money in politics? And how can you conclude that what Bernie Sanders proposes won't work? Other social programs have worked, why not free colleges? Why not tax the wealthiest 1% just a little more than they are now? Why not provide universal health care to all?
No bravedave, you simply aren't grasping the concept that the listed programs I just provided are social programs, similar to what Bernie seeks. Those social programs work, so what evidence can you provide that the social programs Bernie is looking for don't work. Keep up man.
all of bernie's social programs will work. Of course bro, why wouldn't they?
I agree that the current economic model hasn't worked. There are too many millionaires+, and too many poor people. I'm just not sure how to fix it.
Proceeds to write like a caveman? That's the point, it's satirical which is a valid mode of criticism unless somehow did we miss the memo that satire is completely not allowed, nor is anyone allowed to be satirical? If you really want to get to the nitty gritty and criticize me grammatically for something I did on purpose, nice one sentence paragraphs there.Its always funny when someone gives another shit about reading comprehension and grammar and then proceeds to write like a caveman.
My take was not only plausible but actually pretty close to the truth as it has been clarified. Yours? Contrived to insult. You're an ass.
Actually, you are not grasping that @TBoneJack never named the need...so I just did not bite on your weak attempt at choosing one to your liking. Duh
You're reading way too far into things, angry? Hardly. Looks like it's the pot calling the kettle black. However, since one person never needed them does that mean everyone else doesn't need them? No, absolutely not. There are so many factors that come into play here that we should have these social welfare nets. Can you refute this? Or should everyone just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and deal with it?
Ok. So it's fair to say then you are in agreement with Bernie Sanders and those who hold the same views as you just laid out.
No bravedave, I was able to have TBJ layout exactly what he is in agreement with, beyond that, if there is something to debate, we can. Do you agree with his views? Or do you think social programs will fail? If so, what evidence do you have? You aren't good at playing the "intelligent" role, would you like me to guide you through it?
I tried to ask him the same thing, he's more interested in trying to paint someone as an angry liberal than discuss policy.
Sometimes you need to avoid the banter and just get right to the point. It's interesting to observe the views of individuals who aren't sure what they want. ( Not saying that TBJ does, or does not, know what he wants )I tried to ask him the same thing, he's more interested in trying to paint someone as an angry liberal than discuss policy.
Americans all want free college and healthcare but they've just been brainwashed into thinking its "dirty Commie talk".
I certainly agree with some of Bernie's assessments and goals. I'd love for everyone to have everything they need. But the government control required to implement Bernie's plans is scary.
