Hunh? Are you not reading the posts you're quoting? 
That's what Crayons said.
Thanks, Jeff! You're right, and I was about to post the same thing. Broketrash disputed what I said ... by repeating what I said!
How come you and I have to spend all our time nowadays explaining each other's posts -- not even just defending, but actually
explaining -- to HerrKaiser and broketrash?
Those who are on assistance of any type are much more likely to vote Democrat. It is no accident of fate that some of the safest Democrat districts in the US are in the inner cities with a large pop on assistance. Lets dispense with such silliness as trying to dodge the economic motivating factors in voting decisions, and the very real impact that being on assistance has on voting decisions. People tend to vote their pocketbook, and this is the control that the entrenched welfare system has over a segment of the electorate.
What Jeff said. Writing with such an indignant tone, you're basically repeating what I wrote (emphasis added):
But when they DO vote, do many poor people vote for Democrats? Sure. Just like many rich people vote for Republicans. As a rule (with some obvious exceptions) people tend to vote for the candidates who they believe are most concerned with their interests. I don't see that as some kind of secret underhanded scheme on the part of either party. Bush is quite open about whom he considers his "base." And that's why HE does the favors HE does. Nobody would mistake our president for someone who goes around worrying about poor folks.
Broketrash, sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts before you attempt to dismantle my arguments.
Why on earth would I want to "dodge the economic motivating factors in voting decisions"? Economic factors are unquestionably among the biggest motivators in voting decisions. With the exception, that is, of voting by affluent Democrats and middle- or lower-income Republicans -- two groups who for some reason vote against their own economic interests.
Apparently they're more motivated by their views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
Lets all right now start weeping for the starving children of 18th cent Ireland who have been dead for 280 years!
Oh, right. The literature of the past could not possibly have any relevance or interest in the present, unless of course the two situations at least as closely parallel as in 18th-century Ireland and Darfur. Otherwise, it's all rubbish. Which eliminates ... well, pretty much all literature. But that's OK, because it leaves us so much more time for reading those fascinating right-wing screeds about how liberals are secretly actually fascists because both like organic vegetables!
exactly, and I would add if the man knew that there were real consequences for abandoning the care and feeding of his children to the tax payers, he may not have dogged the woman and split.
society should have made better choices and not created a system which encourages this type of behavior!
And by my count, that's officially three and four times you guys have refused to acknowledge the question that Jeff and I have raised about how this policy of punishing parents for their deeds will affect their children. Guess concern for the well-being of kids is just more of that silly
liberalthink, hunh?
Or are we just going to have another "conservative" vs "liberal" free for all?
Yes.
