I wasn't pointing out how REAL politicians act, I was pointing out how members of this forum's arguments are going to change. Still on the first page, I gave you 2 examples of that very thing.Reciprocity wrote:
old arguement-Iraq was responsible for September 11th
new arguement-Iraq had big, bad weapons on tap, ready to go
newest arguement-we need to bring freedom to the noble peoples of Iraq
old arguement-"We will stay the course."
new argument- "Who ever said stay the course?"
old arguement-regarding the outcome of 2006 elections"you have your math, I have real math."-Carl Rove
new argument-my balls, those god damned American Voters chopped off my balls
old argument-ole' Rumsfeld is here to stay
new argument-hit the bricks, rummy, and don't let the door hit you in the ass
If you think that I will act in the manner that you expect of liberals then you are very much mistaken. I'm sharpening my 'Democrats are pro-Israel' knife as we speak.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-10 02:35:40)
There is just no pleasing you Poe!CameronPoe wrote:
If you think that I will act in the manner in which you expect of liberals then you are very much mistaken. I'm sharpening my 'Democrats are pro-Israel' knife as we speak.
not sure whatcher talkin' bout Cam, you ALREADY act in the liberal manner that I have come to expect.CameronPoe wrote:
If you think that I will act in the manner in which you expect of liberals then you are very much mistaken. I'm sharpening my 'Democrats are pro-Israel' knife as we speak.
America and Israel sucks and are terrorist states.
Terrorists ( killers of women, children, civilians, who hide behind innocent people while conducting war) are freedom fighters and should be appeased and understood.
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
why is welfare such a bad concept for you?lowing wrote:
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
Ohhhhhh I dunno, I guess I believe in working for a living, and only helping those that CAN'T help themselves instead of proping up those that can and don't feel like it. Call me Scrooge.BN wrote:
why is welfare such a bad concept for you?lowing wrote:
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
Propping up?lowing wrote:
Ohhhhhh I dunno, I guess I believe in working for a living, and only helping those that CAN'T help themselves instead of proping up those that can and don't feel like it. Call me Scrooge.BN wrote:
why is welfare such a bad concept for you?lowing wrote:
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
I like to think of it as a leg up for the disadvantaged ie single mothers, single fathers, the disabled etc
We have several good systems in Australia for disadvantaged people.
There are some dole bludgers out there that like to surf and they get weeded out (pardon the pun)
i see it alot in Britain. Young girls get pregnant at 17, 18 so they get a flat, support payments. Its pretty bad over there
Why do you think welfare always gets abused?
Welfare is good for all of sociality. The more fortunate members of society give the less fortunate a lift up bringing everyone up to roughly the same level. When I say unfortunate members of society I don't mean lazy members of society, I'm talking about people who can't work or say a single mother trying to raise 3 kids. Lowing you seam to have two brackets for society.
1. people who can work.
2. Everyone else is a lazy bastard and should be left to rot in the slums bellow my luxury condo.
Welfare states don't have the massive gap between rich and poor which breads malcontent, jealousy and desperate acts. It one of the reasons why countries with no welfare have such high crime rates.
Look at Cuba, you could learn alot there. (lol ill wait for the backlash on that statement)
1. people who can work.
2. Everyone else is a lazy bastard and should be left to rot in the slums bellow my luxury condo.
Welfare states don't have the massive gap between rich and poor which breads malcontent, jealousy and desperate acts. It one of the reasons why countries with no welfare have such high crime rates.
Look at Cuba, you could learn alot there. (lol ill wait for the backlash on that statement)
Might wanna go back and re-read, I clearly said, I beleive in helping those that are not able to, I think disabled would be another word for that.BN wrote:
Propping up?lowing wrote:
Ohhhhhh I dunno, I guess I believe in working for a living, and only helping those that CAN'T help themselves instead of proping up those that can and don't feel like it. Call me Scrooge.BN wrote:
why is welfare such a bad concept for you?
I like to think of it as a leg up for the disadvantaged ie single mothers, single fathers, the disabled etc
We have several good systems in Australia for disadvantaged people.
There are some dole bludgers out there that like to surf and they get weeded out (pardon the pun)
i see it alot in Britain. Young girls get pregnant at 17, 18 so they get a flat, support payments. Its pretty bad over there
Why do you think welfare always gets abused?
Why are so against healthy people getting off their asses and going to work like you and I have to every day??
why do I think welfare gets abused???.........cuz I can read, and I can also stand behind someone in the grocery line and watch them pay for beer and cigerettes with cash, and food with food stamps.
Israel terrorist state: correct.lowing wrote:
not sure whatcher talkin' bout Cam, you ALREADY act in the liberal manner that I have come to expect.CameronPoe wrote:
If you think that I will act in the manner in which you expect of liberals then you are very much mistaken. I'm sharpening my 'Democrats are pro-Israel' knife as we speak.
America and Israel sucks and are terrorist states.
Terrorists ( killers of women, children, civilians, who hide behind innocent people while conducting war) are freedom fighters and should be appeased and understood.
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
USA terrorist state: Not necessarily. Reps are gone so the future isn't so bleak. USA were never anywhere near as bad as Israel let's get that straight.
Al Qaeda: Unrepentent out-and-out odious terrorists (based mainly in Afghanistan). Jemaah Al Islamiyah: Terrorists. Hamas: Palestinian freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). Ethnic Factions in Iraq: Protagonists in a civil war. Chechens: Freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). George Washington's Army: Freedom Fighters (perhaps regarded as terrorists by the Brits?). Understand/appease Al Qaeda/Jemaah Al Islamiyah? No way josé. Understand Palestinians/Chechens/G. Washington? I think so. Appease them? I say compromise with them if their cause is just - hopefully they reciprocate and act reasonably.
Differentiation Lowing - you should try it.
Welfare is not a comfortable living. We are 180 degrees out on the whole issue of brotherliness, humanity, compassion and helping hands so there is no point in us bleating on about it. You are for 'Me first and only me' and I am for 'Me first and then all'.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-10 03:02:30)
OK give me one example, of someone who is ABLE to work but CAN'T work and needs their life subsidized forever. Now, remember, you can"t give examples of people who have destroyed their lives by their own lack of responsibility or moral judgment.JahManRed wrote:
Welfare is good for all of sociality. The more fortunate members of society give the less fortunate a lift up bringing everyone up to roughly the same level. When I say unfortunate members of society I don't mean lazy members of society, I'm talking about people who can't work or say a single mother trying to raise 3 kids. Lowing you seam to have two brackets for society.
1. people who can work.
2. Everyone else is a lazy bastard and should be left to rot in the slums bellow my luxury condo.
Welfare states don't have the massive gap between rich and poor which breads malcontent, jealousy and desperate acts. It one of the reasons why countries with no welfare have such high crime rates.
Look at Cuba, you could learn alot there. (lol ill wait for the backlash on that statement)
A single mother with two kids (two baby twins) from a teenage pregnancy interrupting her education. She is 15 and hadn't matured enough to know better. The subsidisation wouldn't need to be forever.lowing wrote:
OK give me one example, of someone who is ABLE to work but CAN'T work and needs their life subsidized forever. Now, remember, you can"t give examples of people who have destroyed their lives by their own lack of responsibility or moral judgment.JahManRed wrote:
Welfare is good for all of sociality. The more fortunate members of society give the less fortunate a lift up bringing everyone up to roughly the same level. When I say unfortunate members of society I don't mean lazy members of society, I'm talking about people who can't work or say a single mother trying to raise 3 kids. Lowing you seam to have two brackets for society.
1. people who can work.
2. Everyone else is a lazy bastard and should be left to rot in the slums bellow my luxury condo.
Welfare states don't have the massive gap between rich and poor which breads malcontent, jealousy and desperate acts. It one of the reasons why countries with no welfare have such high crime rates.
Look at Cuba, you could learn alot there. (lol ill wait for the backlash on that statement)
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-10 03:05:35)
Hi Lowinglowing wrote:
Watch!!....here is how the liberals are going to start acting when defending their position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- with regards to Clinton legacy " Bush is the president, everything is his responsibility"( except the good things)
new argument- "You can't blame the democrats, they inherited the mess from Bush" So your logic is: Clinton is to blame for past problems, and liberals are going to blame Bush for future problems because Democrats in Congress (for the most part NOT liberal-minded people) are going to shape the US. What was "Clinton's legacy?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- "we must mind our own business, leave Iraq, and bring our troops home."
new argument- "I am not saying we should bring the troops home now, we must first help establish a stable country " No, it is still, "We should have never been there; stop all the profiteering; stop exploiting the Iraqi people; stop the military industry from using Iraq as a cash cow; use our troops for the citizens' best interest, not CEOs; Give the Armed Forces the necessary manpower, equipment, and resources to properly rebuild the nation, not destroy it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- "Bush destroyed our economy, we need to raise taxes.
new argument- "Our economy WAS destroyed by Bush, and we need more time to fix it, re-elect us." All politicians want to get reelected. No one in their right mind would blame one person for the volatility of the nation's economy. Our economy is fundamentally flawed, that's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- "Bush is a racist Nazi by keeping people from coming to America illegally, so much for , GIVE US YOUR POOR YOUR TIRED, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES"
new argument- Bush did not do enough to control our borders, if he had we would not be facing these immigration problems. The immigration ("problem?") can be fixed easily-heavier fines/regulation/enforcement of employers. If there are no jobs here, people looking for cheap jobs will stop coming here. Oh wait, our economy relies on cheap labor to maximize profits...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- "BUsh and the republicans has destroyed America."
new argument- "We must come together as Americans and put aside bi-partisanship" How about, "both parties represent the same corporate interests, it is time to change the two-party state."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- "The patriot is stealing our rights and is illegal"
new argument ( after we are attacked again) "Bush's patriot act failed and he didn't do enough to protect America". ( never mind, it was liberals that disclosed our war plans to the terrorists). Terrorists might attack again, regardless of the Patriot Act. That act does little to stop terrorism. Our foreign policy does much to foment terrorism. Change our "Rape and pillage these countries and install US friendly dictators" foreign policy. That causes terrorism exponentially more than the Patriot Act stops terrorism.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-11-10 03:10:31)
I am a fan of history, I don't EVER recall reading about George Washington targeting women and children, hiding from the British among women and children while conducting warfare and using women and children as shields. Israel is not known ofr that either. So you seem to be the one who needs to learn how to "DIFFERENTIATE", there Cam.CameronPoe wrote:
Israel terrorist state: correct.lowing wrote:
not sure whatcher talkin' bout Cam, you ALREADY act in the liberal manner that I have come to expect.CameronPoe wrote:
If you think that I will act in the manner in which you expect of liberals then you are very much mistaken. I'm sharpening my 'Democrats are pro-Israel' knife as we speak.
America and Israel sucks and are terrorist states.
Terrorists ( killers of women, children, civilians, who hide behind innocent people while conducting war) are freedom fighters and should be appeased and understood.
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
USA terrorist state: Not necessarily. Reps are gone so the future isn't so bleak. USA were never anywhere near as bad as Israel let's get that straight.
Al Qaeda: Unrepentent out-and-out odious terrorists (based mainly in Afghanistan). Jemaah Al Islamiyah: Terrorists. Hamas: Palestinian freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). Ethnic Factions in Iraq: Protagonists in a civil war. Chechens: Freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). George Washington's Army: Freedom Fighters (perhaps regarded as terrorists by the Brits?). Understand/appease Al Qaeda/Jemaah Al Islamiyah? No way josé. Understand Palestinians/Chechens/G. Washington? I think so. Appease them? I say compromise with them if their cause is just - hopefully they reciprocate and act reasonably.
Differentiation Lowing - you should try it.
Welfare is not a comfortable living. We are 180 degrees out on the whole issue of brotherliness, humanity, compassion and helping hands so there is no point in us bleating on about it. You are for 'Me first and only me' and I am for 'Me first and then all'.
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-10 03:08:08)
no, apparently, just until the kids turn 18....Falls in line with personal responsibility. Plenty of example with people with kids that get educated.CameronPoe wrote:
A single mother with two kids (two baby twins) from a teenage pregnancy interrupting her education. She is 15 and hadn't matured enough to know better. The subsidisation wouldn't need to be forever.lowing wrote:
OK give me one example, of someone who is ABLE to work but CAN'T work and needs their life subsidized forever. Now, remember, you can"t give examples of people who have destroyed their lives by their own lack of responsibility or moral judgment.JahManRed wrote:
Welfare is good for all of sociality. The more fortunate members of society give the less fortunate a lift up bringing everyone up to roughly the same level. When I say unfortunate members of society I don't mean lazy members of society, I'm talking about people who can't work or say a single mother trying to raise 3 kids. Lowing you seam to have two brackets for society.
1. people who can work.
2. Everyone else is a lazy bastard and should be left to rot in the slums bellow my luxury condo.
Welfare states don't have the massive gap between rich and poor which breads malcontent, jealousy and desperate acts. It one of the reasons why countries with no welfare have such high crime rates.
Look at Cuba, you could learn alot there. (lol ill wait for the backlash on that statement)
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-10 03:12:16)
Was I dreaming or didn't Israel kill thousands of Lebanese civilians recently? Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah are all as bad as each other. My point on Washington is that he would have been regarded as a terrorist irrespective of whether or not he targetted civilians. The dominant power decrees who the 'terrorist' is, whether or not terrorism is actually engaged in. It helps throw up an understanding barrier meaning the likes of decent freedom fighters get lumped in with terrorists. Do you agree that Al Qaeda are different from the PLO for instance?lowing wrote:
I am a fan of history, I don't EVER recall reading about George Washington targeting women and children, hiding from the British among women and children while conducting warfare and using women and children as shields. Israel is not known ofr that either. So you seem to be the one who needs to learn how to "DIFFERENTIATE", there Cam.CameronPoe wrote:
Israel terrorist state: correct.lowing wrote:
not sure whatcher talkin' bout Cam, you ALREADY act in the liberal manner that I have come to expect.
America and Israel sucks and are terrorist states.
Terrorists ( killers of women, children, civilians, who hide behind innocent people while conducting war) are freedom fighters and should be appeased and understood.
The hard working people of any country should bust their ass to provide a comfortable living for everyone that chooses not to, instead of building a life for themselves.
I don't think I missed anything, let me know if I left something out.
USA terrorist state: Not necessarily. Reps are gone so the future isn't so bleak. USA were never anywhere near as bad as Israel let's get that straight.
Al Qaeda: Unrepentent out-and-out odious terrorists (based mainly in Afghanistan). Jemaah Al Islamiyah: Terrorists. Hamas: Palestinian freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). Ethnic Factions in Iraq: Protagonists in a civil war. Chechens: Freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). George Washington's Army: Freedom Fighters (perhaps regarded as terrorists by the Brits?). Understand/appease Al Qaeda/Jemaah Al Islamiyah? No way josé. Understand Palestinians/Chechens/G. Washington? I think so. Appease them? I say compromise with them if their cause is just - hopefully they reciprocate and act reasonably.
Differentiation Lowing - you should try it.
Welfare is not a comfortable living. We are 180 degrees out on the whole issue of brotherliness, humanity, compassion and helping hands so there is no point in us bleating on about it. You are for 'Me first and only me' and I am for 'Me first and then all'.
good question, lets seeCameronPoe wrote:
Was I dreaming or didn't Israel kill thousands of Lebanese civilians recently? Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah are all as bad as each other. My point on Washington is that he would have been regarded as a terrorist irrespective of whether or not he targetted civilians. The dominant power decrees who the 'terrorist' is, whether or not terrorism is actually engaged in. It helps throw up an understanding barrier meaning the likes of decent freedom fighters get lumped in with terrorists. Do you agree that Al Qaeda are different from the PLO for instance?lowing wrote:
I am a fan of history, I don't EVER recall reading about George Washington targeting women and children, hiding from the British among women and children while conducting warfare and using women and children as shields. Israel is not known ofr that either. So you seem to be the one who needs to learn how to "DIFFERENTIATE", there Cam.CameronPoe wrote:
Israel terrorist state: correct.
USA terrorist state: Not necessarily. Reps are gone so the future isn't so bleak. USA were never anywhere near as bad as Israel let's get that straight.
Al Qaeda: Unrepentent out-and-out odious terrorists (based mainly in Afghanistan). Jemaah Al Islamiyah: Terrorists. Hamas: Palestinian freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). Ethnic Factions in Iraq: Protagonists in a civil war. Chechens: Freedom fighters who often engage in terrorism to their detriment (which I condemn). George Washington's Army: Freedom Fighters (perhaps regarded as terrorists by the Brits?). Understand/appease Al Qaeda/Jemaah Al Islamiyah? No way josé. Understand Palestinians/Chechens/G. Washington? I think so. Appease them? I say compromise with them if their cause is just - hopefully they reciprocate and act reasonably.
Differentiation Lowing - you should try it.
Welfare is not a comfortable living. We are 180 degrees out on the whole issue of brotherliness, humanity, compassion and helping hands so there is no point in us bleating on about it. You are for 'Me first and only me' and I am for 'Me first and then all'.
Al Quaeda purposly targets women and children for murder and conducts warfare among the masses
PLO purposly targets women and children and for murder and conducts warefare among the masses
nope, same thing.
As far as Israel killing civilians, I will bet 10 bucks that goes along the same idea that the Hamas was actually hiding among those civilians that got killed so people like you can point out how many civilians Israel killed. If yoiu ask me, Hamas is the group responsibable for those civilan deaths.
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-10 03:25:47)
sorry Cam gotta go to work..........I have welfare payouts to make.
You're blind. You really are. I can see how bad Hamas are and yet you can't see how bad Israel is. Someone who can't accept the fact that Israel destroyed half of Lebanon and killed thousands of civilians with their own two hands has logic and reason issues. There is such a thing as measured response you know.lowing wrote:
good question, lets see
Al Quaeda purposly targets women and children for murder and conducts warfare among the masses
PLO purposly targets women and children and for murder and conducts warefare among the masses
nope, same thing.
As far as Israel killing civilians, I will bet 10 bucks that goes along the same idea that the Hamas was actually hiding among those civilians that got killed so people like you can point out how many civilians Israel killed. If yoiu ask me, Hamas is the group responsibable for those civilan deaths.
The PLO gave up on targetting women and children to engage in politics btw. Al Qaeda never will. Al Qaeda want to dominate the world with Islam. The PLO want to have a Palestinian state and they have accepted a two-state solution. The PLO have no desire to impact on the rest of the world whatsoever. Their cause is very very just. Al Qaeda's is not.
PLO - Al Qaeda: Unbelievably different! Comprende? Do you understand what I mean when I say you have 'differentiation' problems? You think about things in too simplistic a manner. The world and everything in it is rarely black or white, 1 or 0, yes or no, good or evil. You only ever seem to have two categorisations on any issue. A flaw of yours in my opinion.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-10 04:16:31)
Which are...lowing wrote:
Watch!!....here is how the liberals are going to start acting when defending their position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old argument- with regards to Clinton legacy " Bush is the president, everything is his responsibility"( except the good things)
The best thing to do would have been not invading Iraq, but since GWB invaded it and removed Saddam, now you have to fix that mess.lowing wrote:
old argument- "we must mind our own business, leave Iraq, and bring our troops home."
new argument- "I am not saying we should bring the troops home now, we must first help establish a stable country "
I agree both.lowing wrote:
old argument- "Bush destroyed our economy, we need to raise taxes.
new argument- "Our economy WAS destroyed by Bush, and we need more time to fix it, re-elect us."
I never heard anyone saying Bush is a nazi, and he really did nothing to prevent immigration problems.lowing wrote:
old argument- "Bush is a racist Nazi by keeping people from coming to America illegally, so much for , GIVE US YOUR POOR YOUR TIRED, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES"
new argument- Bush did not do enough to control our borders, if he had we would not be facing these immigration problems.
Hilarious, the second statement is what Bush said after losing.lowing wrote:
old argument- "BUsh and the republicans has destroyed America."
new argument- "We must come together as Americans and put aside bi-partisanship"
He never acted like a patriot. A patriot is a person who supports in a positive way his country and he didn't.lowing wrote:
old argument- "The patriot is stealing our rights and is illegal"
new argument ( after we are attacked again) "Bush's patriot act failed and he didn't do enough to protect America". ( never mind, it was liberals that disclosed our war plans to the terrorists).
more to come.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-10 03:43:54)
I see you're a bit confused. Let me see... You're confusing liberals with democrats... To put it in perspective, remember that democrats resemble republicans. You know them, right?lowing wrote:
who said anything about "policy" I simply guessed how liberals arguments are going to start changing on here, 30 secs later I found an example of it. Didn't say shit about any "policy". Liberals are just that transparent.
ƒ³
Welfare is only for the people who need looking after. So, if people are buying booze and whatnot with the money surely the system is flawed, not the idea.lowing wrote:
Might wanna go back and re-read, I clearly said, I beleive in helping those that are not able to, I think disabled would be another word for that.
Yup maybe so. but none the less, the PLO are terrorists. Israel does not purposely attack women and children. Women and children get killed by Israel when the PLO and Hamas, hide and conduct warfare amongst them. I will NOT let you dismiss that fact.CameronPoe wrote:
You're blind. You really are. I can see how bad Hamas are and yet you can't see how bad Israel is. Someone who can't accept the fact that Israel destroyed half of Lebanon and killed thousands of civilians with their own two hands has logic and reason issues. There is such a thing as measured response you know.lowing wrote:
good question, lets see
Al Quaeda purposly targets women and children for murder and conducts warfare among the masses
PLO purposly targets women and children and for murder and conducts warefare among the masses
nope, same thing.
As far as Israel killing civilians, I will bet 10 bucks that goes along the same idea that the Hamas was actually hiding among those civilians that got killed so people like you can point out how many civilians Israel killed. If yoiu ask me, Hamas is the group responsibable for those civilan deaths.
The PLO gave up on targetting women and children to engage in politics btw. Al Qaeda never will. Al Qaeda want to dominate the world with Islam. The PLO want to have a Palestinian state and they have accepted a two-state solution. The PLO have no desire to impact on the rest of the world whatsoever. Their cause is very very just. Al Qaeda's is not.
PLO - Al Qaeda: Unbelievably different! Comprende? Do you understand what I mean when I say you have 'differentiation' problems? You think about things in too simplistic a manner. The world and everything in it is rarely black or white, 1 or 0, yes or no, good or evil. You only ever seem to have two categorisations on any issue. A flaw of yours in my opinion.
Too bad theres more truth to lowing's posts than you people will give him credit for, just wait and listen and watch. John Kerry's sandals are a comin.
Now ya got it................I want to cut the fat off the welfare system. Enforce time limits spent in the system as well.BN wrote:
Welfare is only for the people who need looking after. So, if people are buying booze and whatnot with the money surely the system is flawed, not the idea.lowing wrote:
Might wanna go back and re-read, I clearly said, I beleive in helping those that are not able to, I think disabled would be another word for that.