"Smaller government" advocates

[Conservative65]

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

Anyone that believes someone wanting to keep more of what they've earned is greedy but someone that didn't earn it getting a portion of it isn't has a problem with logic.

 

[koshergrl]

These welfare losers...they create all these ridiculous laws, then claim when we want to roll them back, we're the ones who want more government.

YOU created the HOMO MARRIAGE laws. We want them gone. That is not a desire for "bigger government" you fucking idiot.

 

[koshergrl]

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why regulate capitalism? Did you not notice what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?

Did you not notice what happened with the banks in 2008/09???

I still don't understand why. I know what happened; I'm not ignorant of history. But how much must our government regulate the markets? How deep do you want to go?

Okay, I'll show you.

If a 4 year old kid throws the ball up in the air, whose job is it to catch it? Chances are the 4 year old won't be able to catch it, they just haven't learned to do that yet.

However, when the child learns to catch it, he no longer needs to rely on the teacher, or someone else to catch it for him. When he becomes proficient, it becomes second nature.

Thus, when you get out on your own, you no longer need your government to coddle you. For example, I am an autodidact. I learn through self teaching, just like my dad does. So the idea that one must learn from the government through their idea of education is...inaccurate. I also had speech impairments as a child. I only learned words at half the pace normal children did, my 50 words to another child's 100-150. However, my grandmother taught me to read, and helped me get a grasp on my vocabulary. I took it the rest of the way. When I got bored, I read dictionaries. I now know at least 25-40,000 words based on the last estimates I received back in high school, though the art of calculating such is a bit imprecise. However, here I am still searching for more words to learn.

The irony here is that I don't have access to a college education right now either, so that means I have to give myself or rather rely on myself for an education. Instead of lamenting the lack of same, I make do with what I have at my disposal. The internet is a vast cornucopia of knowledge.

So it's the job of the parents to teach them to do this, right? What if the parents don't teach the kid?

Parents and government are completely unrelated. Like I said, when the child does learn, the need for the parents tutelage diminishes. There is no need for them to continue teaching it to him. If they do, whatever progress the child makes will be lost, since he will remain reliant on them instead of himself.

For example. When I first started typing with a QWERTY style keyboard, I taught myself how to do it on my own. My grandmother was a professional typist, but she preferred I learn the layout on my own. And so I did. I can type almost 110 words per minute, faster than her. I didn't have to rely on anyone to learn something, just like I don't need my government coaching me on everything.

There are two ways of looking at this. From the parents with kids point of view, or the kids with parents point of view. The latter shows that the kid is fucking screwed in life with your attitude.

Huh? So, you expect the child to rely on his parents the rest of his life? Is this what I'm reading? So, are we preaching dependence or independence?

Isaac Newton said that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", he meant that what he had done would not have been done without all those who had gone before him. That is what science is. You can't learn science without learning from those who came before you.

Sure, but science, or physics in Newton's case, was founded and improved on by people, not by government regulation. Newton happened to be one of those giants. Einstein was another, Edwin Hubble another, and so on.

They didn't require assistance from the government, they learned from teachers, or were in fact their own teachers, not government. Government is no substitute for ingenuity.

Imagine a successful businessman in the US. Now imagine the same person having been born in Mogadishu in Somalia and imagine how rich this businessman would be in Somalia compared to in the US.

I don't understand how that has anything to do with what our Government in the US should do. Let Somalia handle its own economy how it sees fit. The businessman in the US naturally has more upward mobility and room to succeed than if he were born in Mogadishu. If he were born in Somalia, all he would need to do is... wait for it... emigrate here, learn our language, learn the ways of business and venture out into the sea of capitalism.

 

[Contumacious]

I know, let's make enemies with the second largest religion in the world,

"We" did not make any enemies. "They" have been on a mass murdering spree since way way back.

WUT?


Are you a numnut?


/

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

Anyone that believes someone wanting to keep more of what they've earned is greedy but someone that didn't earn it getting a portion of it isn't has a problem with logic.

With that I need to quote Ken Blackwell:

"Liberals believe that if you earn money--you are not entitled to it. But if you want money--you are."

 

[leftwinger]

I know, let's make enemies with the second largest religion in the world,

"We" did not make any enemies. "They" have been on a mass murdering spree since way way back.

WUT?


Are you a numnut?


/

OK, good call. It seemed like good idea at creation......copied from sports board. To change is to start over.........retire "it". It is only a name.

 

[koshergrl]

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.

 

[leftwinger]

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.

Or if you are illegal. No vote in FED if you don't "pay" FED income tax? (wooo-eeee! that would really blow them up).

I suppose there are enough hidden fees/fines/charges that "they" will claim they pay a lot of FED taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.

True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.

They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.

If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.

Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.

 

[leftwinger]

IF the "takers" win again.........with a lying old white lifer, or a crazy old socialist nutcase.

This would mean "they" outnumber "us" (and they can get them out of bed, or corrupt the vote)?

This would be the end of "us" until the next complete collapse? It may not be pretty even if "they" don't win.

A lot of "us" have worked very hard for very many years.........sigh. Many too old to begin again.

 

[leftwinger]

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.

True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.

They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.

If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.

Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.

Great minds think alike.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF the "takers" win again.........with a lying old white lifer, or a crazy old socialist nutcase.

This would mean "they" outnumber "us" (and they can get them out of bed, or corrupt the vote)?

This would be the end of "us" until the next complete collapse? It may not be pretty even if "they" don't win.

A lot of "us" have worked very hard for very many years.........sigh. Many too old to begin again.

Correct which is why Democrats try to make as many Americans government dependent as possible. With Commie Care alone, over 10 million people will become government dependent for healthcare come 2016. It's not an accident either.

 

[leftwinger]

They got plenty of ID to get EBT card, or booze, or MED Marijuana card or SSISD. Even a passed out drunk or junkie has those three, never lose them. no clothes, no home, no car, no money, no problem. Here is my ID "wrinkle free". 10 kids, no husband? come on in.

 

[leftwinger]

now you got me going. I try to paste this one I copy from others........

 

[rightwinger]

now you got me going. I try to paste this one I copy from others........
View attachment 54324

Communist Rules for Revolution

As reproduced in the example above, one purportedly genuine document of such ilk is a list of "Communist Rules for Revolution" which is typically claimed to have been discovered "in May 1919 at Dusseldorf, Germany, by allied forces" and "first printed in the United States" in the Bartlesville, Oklahoma Examiner-Enterprise. Aside from the fact that the Examiner-Enterprise is a real newspaper, none of this rings true. Language about getting the young "interested in sex" and focusing their attention on "sexy books" and fretting about the "registration of all firearms" sounds out of place for 1919 (as this Ngram chart shows, "sexy" is a word one was far more likely to have encountered in America during the post-World War II era than in 1919), and not surprisingly, nobody has ever managed to turn up the mysterious issue of Examiner-Enterprise that supposedly printed this list. When columnist Bob Greene checked out this piece with Russian specialists at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University in the mid-1980s, they said the list was "a total fraud," "an obvious fabrication," and "an implausible concoction of American fears and phobias." (Greene also wrote: "I always wanted to meet a communist who was carrying the list around, so I could ask him what 'obloquy' means.")

 

[Contumacious]

now you got me going. I try to paste this one I copy from others........
View attachment 54324

I definitely agree that Rule 7C is a dangerous part of their propaganda arsenal.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know, let's make enemies with the second largest religion in the world,

"We" did not make any enemies. "They" have been on a mass murdering spree since way way back.

Why do you think a lot of Muslims in the Middle East hate the US then? Just because?

It's not even just the US they hate, but the West in general. Why?

There's what the British and French did in the Middle East.

But then the US came along and took over this mantle.

Go look at what the US has done in the Middle East and Muslim countries over the last 70 years, and you'll get an idea of how the US made enemies.

As for people being on a mass murdering spree since way way back, well, WHO THE HELL HASN'T?

 

[leftwinger]

Who are we kidding. USA is already socialist. I am so depressed just vote Bernie and quit lying about it. This slow bleed is even worse. No one is going to be able to reverse it, are they?

Somewhere they got to get about $4T/year to get back into black and quit spending. how?