Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

Ann Romney doesn't have a clue about what it takes to really survive when you are on the bottom. I'm sure that she and Mitt are nice people, and probably do feel great compassion for the poor. But understand what that really means? No, farking way.

For that matter, most Democratic politicians who are supposedly more compassionate for the poor, also don't really have a clue what it really means to struggle financially.

saintstryfe: EWreckedSean: No, several of your wonderful liberal friends here have pretty clearly stated battling MS isn't struggling. Very compassionate of them.

No one said that.

However, she has the financial resources to minimize any effect. Will it kill her? Eventually. Will it be her fault? No. But to pretend she has the concerns of a woman with MS who wasn't rich beyond the dreams of Midas is foolish. Let's say she has an attack that bedrids her for a few weeks - does she lose her job? Does she worry about feeding herself? Does she worry about her kids? Does she fear losing her health coverage?

None of the above. It's not a good or even fair hand to be dealt, but it's not the same as acting like her illness alone grounds her.

Wanna bet:

EWreckedSean: BKITU: She knows what it's like to struggle much in the same way that your average American understands an emaciated African child, inasmuch as the American has occasionally felt hungry.

Yes, because battling cancer and MS is FUN and easy when you are rich!

Hey, good on her. She still has no idea what it's like to struggle.

Having access to the best health care available, on demand, without having to worry for a single second as to whether or not she can afford to keep her medical appointments when she needs them for fear of not getting enough work hours to pay the rent, is not struggling. That's taking care of yourself when you're sick. Good on her for having the means to do so.

Struggling people often do not have such means, and Mrs. Romney hasn't walked a single step in the shoes of such people. That's the whole frakkin' point. Saying she knows what it's actually like is either dishonest or delusional.

EWreckedSean: The so what is all the money in the world doesn't change the fact the disease is going to kill her.

Yay! She gets a free pass for everything, now!

Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

It's like the pedophiles on "To Catch a Predator": they just can't resist that sweet tea.

BunkoSquad: EWreckedSean: Mitt's not a billionaire, but sure, obviously the money doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, there is no cure for the disease. All the money in the world won't stop it from killing her. Do you disagree?

No, it won't stop it. But you know what? Everybody's gonna die of something, and a lot of those somethings are painful and depressing. And it's a lot worse when you're not rich.

Most of us will never remotely suffer the way somebody with MS does. Spending years slowly watching your body fail you will you can do nothing to stop it. I get it, it's worse if you are poor.

Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

I'm just in the mood to get in an unwinnable argument, and my wife's not around.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

I'm just in the mood to get in an unwinnable argument, and my wife's not around.

It's a discussion. They don't have winners. Although in fairness if Jack Havechek is involved they clearly have losers.

Mrtraveler01: EWreckedSean: bugontherug: runin800m: So, volunteering time working for multiple charities is only a feel-good thing that serves to score PR points and ease a guilty conscience, but providing services to the poor through the government and tax dollars is good. What, exactly, makes it better for a politician to stand up and talk about how they want to help the poor, through tax dollars rather than with their own time or money, than for a private citizen to donate their own money and time to help the poor?

Private charities do not now and never have provided the sort of sustained assistance many poor/old/disabled, etc. people require to live a semblance of a normal life. Soup kitchens do not solve the problem of homelessness, for example. At best they ameliorate it by a fraction. Historical evidence suggests, by contrast, that Social Security has dramatically reduced homelessness and poverty among senior citizens over the decades.

Private charity is okay. But it is no substitute for a government provided safety net.

It is also, however, unsustainable in the long run as it exists today.

True. And most sane people realize the best way to do that is with some sensible reform and cuts in addition to tax increases.

But the GOP wants to double down on the derp and make drastic cuts to the safety net in addition to cutting taxes which means the social programs would have to take even more severe cuts than they really have to.

So yeah, tell me how much the GOP cares about the poor, I'll continue to laugh hysterically at that bogus claim.

How does 0bama care about the poor by doing the 0bama tax cuts for the rich (formerly known as the Bush Tax Cuts)?

EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

I'm just in the mood to get in an unwinnable argument, and my wife's not around.

It's a discussion. They don't have winners. Although in fairness if Jack Havechek is involved they clearly have losers.

No. You and I are arguing.

EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

I'm just in the mood to get in an unwinnable argument, and my wife's not around.

It's a discussion. They don't have winners. Although in fairness if Jack Havechek is involved they clearly have losers.

How on earth can you devote so much time to this?

EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: EWreckedSean: BKITU: She knows what it's like to struggle much in the same way that your average American understands an emaciated African child, inasmuch as the American has occasionally felt hungry.

Yes, because battling cancer and MS is FUN and easy when you are rich!

Easier than when you have no money and no health insurance.

Yes, and harder then most women who don't have either disease, let alone both.

Why harder? She's alive and rich. She'll have all the care she needs and need never fear not having it. Most women don't have that security. So something bad happened to her. Bad things happen to all of us. The differences is, she's got the resources to never have to fear them.

The resources to never have to fear them? MS is incurable and degenerative. You think being rich means you don't fear your body slowly failing on you? It's something most people, rich or poor will ever have to deal with. And all the money in the world won't save her from it.

Your gloating does not help your argument, honey.

bugontherug: runin800m: So, volunteering time working for multiple charities is only a feel-good thing that serves to score PR points and ease a guilty conscience, but providing services to the poor through the government and tax dollars is good. What, exactly, makes it better for a politician to stand up and talk about how they want to help the poor, through tax dollars rather than with their own time or money, than for a private citizen to donate their own money and time to help the poor?

Private charities do not now and never have provided the sort of sustained assistance many poor/old/disabled, etc. people require to live a semblance of a normal life. Soup kitchens do not solve the problem of homelessness, for example. At best they ameliorate it by a fraction. Historical evidence suggests, by contrast, that Social Security has dramatically reduced homelessness and poverty among senior citizens over the decades.

Private charity is okay. But it is no substitute for a government provided safety net.

I wasn't arguing that we need to eliminate all government provided safety nets. I never even advocated that we eliminate any government safety net. I was addressing the ridiculous assertion that someone spending their time and money working with a charity to help those in need is only out of a selfish interest in making oneself feel better and less guilty while any true philanthropist must support government run social services, as well as the assertion that private charities are criminally inefficient.

I simply pointed out that private charities are, on average, much more efficient than government run programs and that it's ridiculous to think that donating ones own money and time to work with a charity is out of self-interest and PR, whereas standing up and advocating to help people using other peoples money is genuinely philanthropic. I think private charity is inherently much better and preferable whenever possible, even though I still believe that some government safety nets are appropriate and good for us as a country. At the same time, there are a few social programs that I would like to see eliminated totally or seriously adjusted, not because I don't wish to help people but because I think that the programs are actually causing more harm than good and only exist to make us feel better and ease guilty consciences.

urbangirl: EWreckedSean: BunkoSquad: EWreckedSean: No, several of your wonderful liberal friends here have pretty clearly stated battling MS isn't struggling. Very compassionate of them.

Actually, most of them have admitted it is a struggle, but suggested that it's much more of a struggle when you're not married to a billionaire. Do you disagree?

Mitt's not a billionaire, but sure, obviously the money doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, there is no cure for the disease. All the money in the world won't stop it from killing her. Do you disagree?

"Mitt's not a billionaire"? That's your response? Really?

Only if you cherry pick the first couple words and ignore the rest.

HotWingConspiracy: Why do you guys reply to this person like they're going to change their tack? The derp has been laid down, marching orders given, and the propaganda needs launching.

THIS. I saw him ask someone for a list of some sort. As if providing that list was going to make him say, "you know, I've been looking at this all wrong".

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

I'm just in the mood to get in an unwinnable argument, and my wife's not around.

It's a discussion. They don't have winners. Although in fairness if Jack Havechek is involved they clearly have losers.

No. You and I are arguing.

You might be. I'm having a discussion. I don't mind talking to people with different opinions so long as they can be civil about it. It's just the internet.

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: EWreckedSean: bugontherug: runin800m: So, volunteering time working for multiple charities is only a feel-good thing that serves to score PR points and ease a guilty conscience, but providing services to the poor through the government and tax dollars is good. What, exactly, makes it better for a politician to stand up and talk about how they want to help the poor, through tax dollars rather than with their own time or money, than for a private citizen to donate their own money and time to help the poor?

Private charities do not now and never have provided the sort of sustained assistance many poor/old/disabled, etc. people require to live a semblance of a normal life. Soup kitchens do not solve the problem of homelessness, for example. At best they ameliorate it by a fraction. Historical evidence suggests, by contrast, that Social Security has dramatically reduced homelessness and poverty among senior citizens over the decades.

Private charity is okay. But it is no substitute for a government provided safety net.

It is also, however, unsustainable in the long run as it exists today.

True. And most sane people realize the best way to do that is with some sensible reform and cuts in addition to tax increases.

But the GOP wants to double down on the derp and make drastic cuts to the safety net in addition to cutting taxes which means the social programs would have to take even more severe cuts than they really have to.

So yeah, tell me how much the GOP cares about the poor, I'll continue to laugh hysterically at that bogus claim.

How does 0bama care about the poor by doing the 0bama tax cuts for the rich (formerly known as the Bush Tax Cuts)?

Well that changes everything. Guess I'll vote for Romney then.

Keep on talking Ann. You're making for some great sound bites this Fall.

Rueened: EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: EWreckedSean: BKITU: She knows what it's like to struggle much in the same way that your average American understands an emaciated African child, inasmuch as the American has occasionally felt hungry.

Yes, because battling cancer and MS is FUN and easy when you are rich!

Easier than when you have no money and no health insurance.

Yes, and harder then most women who don't have either disease, let alone both.

Why harder? She's alive and rich. She'll have all the care she needs and need never fear not having it. Most women don't have that security. So something bad happened to her. Bad things happen to all of us. The differences is, she's got the resources to never have to fear them.

The resources to never have to fear them? MS is incurable and degenerative. You think being rich means you don't fear your body slowly failing on you? It's something most people, rich or poor will ever have to deal with. And all the money in the world won't save her from it.

Your gloating does not help your argument, honey.

How is that gloating exactly?

EWreckedSean: You might be. I'm having a discussion

Nope. You're having an argument. With me. And you're enjoying it. More than you've ever enjoyed anything in your life. If you took all the good meals you've ever eaten, and all the good sex you've ever had, and added them all up, it still wouldn't equal how much you're enjoying arguing with me.

EWreckedSean: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Rapmaster2000: Jake Havechek: How is it that cocksuckers like EWreckedSean derail a whole thread into a discussion about MS?

Because contrary to what they say, people love to be trolled.

I'm just in the mood to get in an unwinnable argument, and my wife's not around.

It's a discussion. They don't have winners. Although in fairness if Jack Havechek is involved they clearly have losers.

You motherfarker. Hey, I like you, why don't you come over and fark my sister, dickface.

Her?

EWreckedSean: PanicMan: EWreckedSean: BunkoSquad: EWreckedSean: No, several of your wonderful liberal friends here have pretty clearly stated battling MS isn't struggling. Very compassionate of them.

Actually, most of them have admitted it is a struggle, but suggested that it's much more of a struggle when you're not married to a billionaire. Do you disagree?

Mitt's not a billionaire, but sure, obviously the money doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, there is no cure for the disease. All the money in the world won't stop it from killing her. Do you disagree?

...Which has nothing to do with her understanding of fair pay for women in the workplace.

No it doesn't. Want to know why? That's not the point that was being addressed here.

Ook, cool so we both agree that MS sucks and Hillary Rosen was right. Thanks.

PanicMan: EWreckedSean: PanicMan: EWreckedSean: BunkoSquad: EWreckedSean: No, several of your wonderful liberal friends here have pretty clearly stated battling MS isn't struggling. Very compassionate of them.

Actually, most of them have admitted it is a struggle, but suggested that it's much more of a struggle when you're not married to a billionaire. Do you disagree?

Mitt's not a billionaire, but sure, obviously the money doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, there is no cure for the disease. All the money in the world won't stop it from killing her. Do you disagree?

...Which has nothing to do with her understanding of fair pay for women in the workplace.

No it doesn't. Want to know why? That's not the point that was being addressed here.

Ook, cool so we both agree that MS sucks and Hillary Rosen was right. Thanks.

So helping to set up and run several charities is in your opinion, not working. Just so we are clear.

rynthetyn: Ctrl-Alt-Del: rynthetyn: I feel like Ann Romney pretending she has anything in common with 99% of American women would be like me, while I was living in the developing world, trying to pretend that I knew what it was like to live on less than $2/day just because I tried to keep my food budget under that figure because I'm a cheapskate.

For her appearance at the Portsmouth Country Club she had to decide between wearing pearls or diamonds. Don't tell me that woman hasn't had to face tough decisions in her life.

Hey don't knock the difficulty of jewelry choices. Pick the wrong thing and it throws off the entire outfit. Wear an inappropriate outfit to an event and you could hurt your whole social standing. It's hard work.

"For those of you in the cheap seats I'd like ya to clap your hands to this one; the rest of you can just rattle your jewelry!" ― John Lennon

"I would love to have people understand that Mitt and I have compassion for people who are struggling," Ann Romney said.

"In fact, we own several of them..."

EWreckedSean: Bunnyhat: SlothB77: Ann Romney is on the ballot now?

Keep attacking Mitt Romney's family members, democrats. Voters will appreciate these classy attacks against someone who isn't even running for office.

And they say Republicans are the anti-women party.


So telling someone who got in front of the cameras, went on national TV, and said she understands the blight of working moms in American that she doesn't because she as never held a job outside of the house is an attack?

So she should be allowed to whatever she wants and no one can refute it?

She said Ann had never worked a day in her life. Which was just moronic. You put the stay at home mom stuff a side even, the woman has helped run a number of charities for years. To quote wiki:

She has been involved in a number of children's charities, including being director of the inner city-oriented Best Friends.[17] She worked extensively with the Ten Point Coalition in Boston and with other groups that promoted better safety and opportunities for urban youths.[31] She was given the 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award from Salt Lake City-based Operation Kids.[32] She has also served as a board member for the United Way of America[17] and helped found United Way Faith and Action.[31]

That's not work?

Thechically that is work for people who don't work for a living, and at that level, most of that work is fundraising not really working amung the needy.

Seriously, if you are even thinking of voting for this out-of-touch non-entity, you're even more butthurt about Obama than previously estimated.

EWreckedSean: PanicMan: EWreckedSean: PanicMan: EWreckedSean: BunkoSquad: EWreckedSean: No, several of your wonderful liberal friends here have pretty clearly stated battling MS isn't struggling. Very compassionate of them.

Actually, most of them have admitted it is a struggle, but suggested that it's much more of a struggle when you're not married to a billionaire. Do you disagree?

Mitt's not a billionaire, but sure, obviously the money doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, there is no cure for the disease. All the money in the world won't stop it from killing her. Do you disagree?

...Which has nothing to do with her understanding of fair pay for women in the workplace.

No it doesn't. Want to know why? That's not the point that was being addressed here.

Ook, cool so we both agree that MS sucks and Hillary Rosen was right. Thanks.

So helping to set up and run several charities is in your opinion, not working. Just so we are clear.

I don't know, how much was she paid in comparison to men in equal positions?

As a life-time grandmal epileptic, I sure wish that all DC politicians will get a real life. They are the worst liars eh. Let alone, don't know __ what hard is.

1macgeek: Hmmm... so rich people are completely incapable of relating...

So where does that leave Barack Hussein Obama with his claim Michelle had to work because they couldn't eke by on his $162,100 U.S. Senate salary? Really?

Or how about Michael Moore and the reported $20 million he took in on Fahrenheit 9/11. Surely that makes him incapable of relating.

So tell me... exactly where is the line drawn where one can no longer relate? I just want to apply it equally to Republicans and Democrats. Especially hypocritical, liberal Democrats who claim rich people, while being rich themselves, cannot relate.

Do you understand the difference between being born into a rich, politically powerful family and being born to a single mother and achieving everything on your own?

I know you do but you just can't wait to get a dig at the dirty libs, right?

/DIAF

My guess is that the Romneys have been briefed on how much a gallon of milk costs so that they have an answer should the question be asked. In fact I'd bet $10,000 their staff briefs them on stuff like that.

I call arugula.

EWreckedSean: urbangirl: EWreckedSean: BunkoSquad: EWreckedSean: No, several of your wonderful liberal friends here have pretty clearly stated battling MS isn't struggling. Very compassionate of them.

Actually, most of them have admitted it is a struggle, but suggested that it's much more of a struggle when you're not married to a billionaire. Do you disagree?

Mitt's not a billionaire, but sure, obviously the money doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, there is no cure for the disease. All the money in the world won't stop it from killing her. Do you disagree?

"Mitt's not a billionaire"? That's your response? Really?

Only if you cherry pick the first couple words and ignore the rest.

That's awfully damn funny coming from you. I'm now convinced that you are true and practiced troll.