obama compares immigrants to pilgrims

#152
#152
SpaceCoastVol said:
We could come up with these what if scenarios all day. Yes they should be able to vote. Why should they be receiving a subsidy for a child they cannot afford?
Click to expand...

Because starving children to save a few pennies from your paycheck isn't cool. I guess she should have went to Planned Parenthood and saved us all the trouble?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#153
#153
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
Because starving children to save a few pennies from your paycheck isn't cool. I guess she should have went to Planned Parenthood and saved us all the trouble?
Click to expand...
Well at least you are honest about your love of the government stealing from one person to pay for another's choices. I'll be honest with you and tell you that that kind of ideal is disgusting. You made the baby, you support it. Why is that concept so abhorrent for you socialist stooges?
 
#154
#154
SpaceCoastVol said:
Well at least you are honest about your love of the government stealing from one person to pay for another's choices. I'll be honest with you and tell you that that kind of ideal is disgusting. You made the baby, you support it. Why is that concept so abhorrent for you socialist stooges?
Click to expand...

It isn't abhorrent. It just isn't going to be the case that every child is going to be born into a family that can fully support them. I don't care to help with the few pennies it costs me. I'd rather it be that way than the child be aborted or starve. But I'm the disgusting a-hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#155
#155
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
It isn't abhorrent. It just isn't going to be the case that every child is going to be born into a family that can fully support them. I don't care to help with the few pennies it costs me. I'd rather it be that way than the child be aborted or starve. But I'm the disgusting a-hole.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have the option of giving my money to St Jude or some other worthwhile charity that will actually do something with that money to benefit the intended recipients rather than your ideal socialist state doling it out to anybody with a "starving" child. And in your last sentence you were half right.
 
#156
#156
Pretty simple, if you can't take care of the baby (physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially) you shouldn't be getting pregnant. Period, end of discussion.

Why is personal responsibility, or lack there of, not at the crux of this argument? If you do not want to get pregnant, you have a 99%+ probability of making sure that it doesn't happen in today's world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#158
#158
tennvols77 said:
Pretty simple, if you can't take care of the baby (physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially) you shouldn't be getting pregnant. Period, end of discussion.

Why is personal responsibility, or lack there of, not at the crux of this argument? If you do not want to get pregnant, you have a 99%+ probability of making sure that it doesn't happen in today's world.
Click to expand...
Because liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. Do what you want, when you want, without fear of consequence because the nanny state will take care of you. Any time you bring up personal responsibility, you are heartless, bigoted, racist, uncaring, or just plain mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#159
#159
SpaceCoastVol said:
Because liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. Do what you want, when you want, without fear of consequence because the nanny state will take care of you. Any time you bring up personal responsibility, you are heartless, bigoted, racist, uncaring, or just plain mean.
Click to expand...

Another strawman argument. I am all for personal responsibility. It seems that this could be a concept that is extended to large corporations that have full time employees on welfare.

As for personal responsibility, I am all in. I work full time, pay taxes, own property and raise my daughter with no help from the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#160
#160
ClearwaterVol said:
Another strawman argument. I am all for personal responsibility. It seems that this could be a concept that is extended to large corporations that have full time employees on welfare.

As for personal responsibility, I am all in. I work full time, pay taxes, own property and raise my daughter with no help from the government.
Click to expand...
Well then you are a proponent of government thuggery. They steal from YOU and me, and give it to those that are not willing to exercise those same responsibilities that you allegedly exercise. I get it though. You think Obola and his successors, R or D, are better at determining where money needs to go. I'd much rather give it to Marlo Thomas. More of my money goes to good things rather than bureaucrat retirement plans.

And it's not a strawman argument. The welfare office waiting rooms are full of people waiting to get "paid". You just believe in the nanny state.
 
#161
#161
SpaceCoastVol said:
Well then you are a proponent of government thuggery. They steal from YOU and me, and give it to those that are not willing to exercise those same responsibilities that you allegedly exercise. I get it though. You think Obola and his successors, R or D, are better at determining where money needs to go. I'd much rather give it to Marlo Thomas. More of my money goes to good things rather than bureaucrat retirement plans.

And it's not a strawman argument. The welfare office waiting rooms are full of people waiting to get "paid". You just believe in the nanny state.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I don't believe that the federal government does anything more effectively than it could be done privately with a few exceptions. Getting people to pony up for things like roads and infrastructure would be a nightmare. Taking care of disadvantaged citizens is another necessary evil. However, the system needs to be revamped to better prevent abuse, but I do not believe that abuse is near the problem that the GOP wants us to believe. There are other hard choices that have to be made. Military spending is an easy target. Education needs to be more of a priority. The tax code needs to be revamped in manner that makes sense. There are lots of problems, but both political parties are pointing fingers at specific segments of the population when it should more aptly be pointed at the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#162
#162
ClearwaterVol said:
Quite frankly, I don't believe that the federal government does anything more effectively than it could be done privately with a few exceptions. Getting people to pony up for things like roads and infrastructure would be a nightmare. Taking care of disadvantaged citizens is another necessary evil. However, the system needs to be revamped to better prevent abuse, but I do not believe that abuse is near the problem that the GOP wants us to believe. There are other hard choices that have to be made. Military spending is an easy target. Education needs to be more of a priority. The tax code needs to be revamped in manner that makes sense. There are lots of problems, but both political parties are pointing fingers at specific segments of the population when it should more aptly be pointed at the government.
Click to expand...


What do you consider a "Disadvantaged citizen?"
 
#163
#163
tumscalcium said:
What do you consider a "Disadvantaged citizen?"
Click to expand...
Those that cannot get high paying jobs. Whatever the reason.

Actually, we are ALL disadvantaged on some level or other. I cannot run a 4.4 - 40. You probably cannot safely land an airplane with an engine on fire in a snowstorm. So what does disadvantaged really mean anyway other than a liberal buzzword to incite class warfare?
 
Last edited:
#165
#165
ClearwaterVol said:
Temporary aid for people down on luck. Aid for mentally or physically disabled people.
Click to expand...
Temporary is not for life, which is what it has become for many. Stop that abuse, and I agree with you. The problem is that the government is incompetent to do that, therefore the problem will do nothing but grow and grow and grow.
 
#166
#166
SpaceCoastVol said:
Because liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. Do what you want, when you want, without fear of consequence because the nanny state will take care of you. Any time you bring up personal responsibility, you are heartless, bigoted, racist, uncaring, or just plain mean.
Click to expand...

Yeah only those girls/women with liberal tendencies show a lack of personal responsibility. No conservative leaning girl/woman would ever show a lack of per responsibility, not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#170
#170
Gramps said:
Yeah only those girls/women with liberal tendencies show a lack of personal responsibility. No conservative leaning girl/woman would ever show a lack of per responsibility, not.
Click to expand...

Been my experience. And I've known a lot of them.
 
#172
#172
ClearwaterVol said:
Probably should pass a law only allowing families that earn less than 40k only one child.
Click to expand...

If technology permitted, I would support means tested fertility.

ClearwaterVol said:
Also need a constitutional amendment making property ownership a voting requirement.
Click to expand...

Property ownership? No. If we have an income tax, net tax payer? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#173
#173
Gramps said:
What about the working couple that rents a home, the man and wife work 40 hours each at lower income jobs. Together they earn approximately* $35,000 per year. They have withholdings taken our of their checks each pay period. When they file their income taxes for the year they qualify for the earned income child credit and* will receive a return in the amount of $7,435.00 which is $4,200.00 more than they had paid in through their withholdings.

Should this couple be allowed to vote?
Click to expand...

No. Not a net tax payer. Lose the tax credit or forfeit your vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top