Which is the party of personal responsibility?

[Daryl Hunt]

Must never forget liberals are not productive. If they were anything but selfish they wouldn't be liberals

Well, we can't all be real producers like you.

I pay for your foodstamps

You seemed to have shorted a few of us. Please remit those funds so we can purchase Food Stamps.

 

[thanatos144]

Must never forget liberals are not productive. If they were anything but selfish they wouldn't be liberals

Well, we can't all be real producers like you.

I pay for your foodstamps

You seemed to have shorted a few of us. Please remit those funds so we can purchase Food Stamps.

Is that suppose to make sense?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Must never forget liberals are not productive. If they were anything but selfish they wouldn't be liberals

Well, we can't all be real producers like you.

I pay for your foodstamps

You seemed to have shorted a few of us. Please remit those funds so we can purchase Food Stamps.

Is that suppose to make sense?

Since you graciously pay for it, I want my cut. You can bypass the system and send it to me directly.

 

[Conservative65]

You seem to be a member of the right wing party made up of nothing but excuses and lies.
How does using excuses and lies to absolve yourselves of failure make the right wing the party of personal responsibility? That's just fucking ridiculous.

How does the picture by the OP on the right show personal responsibility?

PERSONAL resonsibility is an individual not a group concept. You and I could be part of the same group. You can't control what I do and vice versa. We can only call out the INDIVIDUAL is they aren't doing what they should be doing.

 

[thanatos144]

Must never forget liberals are not productive. If they were anything but selfish they wouldn't be liberals

Well, we can't all be real producers like you.

I pay for your foodstamps

You seemed to have shorted a few of us. Please remit those funds so we can purchase Food Stamps.

Is that suppose to make sense?

Since you graciously pay for it, I want my cut. You can bypass the system and send it to me directly.

Talk to the government about that they stole my money

 

[Conservative65]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

 

[rightwinger]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

 

[thanatos144]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

Hey asshole you want to help so bad YOU pay for it stop demanding others to do it.

 

[Conservative65]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

 

[rightwinger]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

 

[hadit]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

When a liberal starts spouting off about "fair", "fair share", and like bilge, insist that they give you a number. How much is a "fair share"? I have had only one liberal actually attempt to give such a number. The rest really mean "more", no matter how much is already being confiscated.

 

[Conservative65]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

 

[Conservative65]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

When a liberal starts spouting off about "fair", "fair share", and like bilge, insist that they give you a number. How much is a "fair share"? I have had only one liberal actually attempt to give such a number. The rest really mean "more", no matter how much is already being confiscated.

They won't give such a number because if they do, going back and increasing it later would show their foolishness. As long as they keep it in vague terms, fair is whatever amount they need at that time to pander.

 

[rightwinger]

No one plays victim in a more unreasonable and infantile manner than conservatives, shit, they even make things up to feel victimized over.

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans are the party of personal responsibility for others

Not necessarily themselves

Funny that's what they say about Democrats.
Are we even now? Can we move on? Next?

Actually, we can't

The Republican "solution" to every social issue is personal responsibility. Welfare, healthcare, child support........get a freak'n job and take care of yourself

Yet, when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions, Republicans always have a fall guy. Liberal Media, low information voters, fixed elections

You are welcome to show a similar Democratic hypocricy

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

 

[YoungSmartHasAHeart]

Must never forget liberals are not productive. If they were anything but selfish they wouldn't be liberals

Selfish enough to support their fellow Americans who can't afford their cancer diagnosis. God forbid our taxes get spent on the greater good!

Pay for it yourself by getting a job

Technically, I do pay for it myself. I own stock in my family's construction company and work with health insurance providers annually to re-vamp the plans we provide. We incur 80% of this cost. I dabble in real estate as well, re-designing this fantastic 1940s farmhouse at the moment (studied design in Undergrad). This fall I start law school.

What made you think I didn't work, MegaDeath?

I believe in taking my money and donating it where I deem best....not having the federal government decide what cause(s) deserves it.
I was fine with my tax money paying for the ER for those that could not afford insurance. I was happy donating money to St. Judes and other cancer centers.
When I was generating an income (retired now.....was lucky....retired by 55)....my planner had a certain percentage for retirement, a certain percentage for investment, a certain percentage for taxes, and a certain percentage for donations.
My last year of income was a year that was met with over 42% taxes including fed, state and local.....That is a high number...and higher than the year before......sadly, donations suffered (as did investments).....
So, in a way, the federal government decided where my "donation" money should go.
Just becaue I prefer to decide what causes to give to, does not mean that I am not interested in helping my fellow Americans.
You are misguided if you think that of those of us that are against government run healthcare.

I do not think that. I think being able to choose where your hard earned money goes is a great thing. I'm in my mid-twenties and my generation just thinks differently. The economy crashed when I was in college. Thankfully, my family was not tremendously effected, I did have to give up my Saks card, poor me, I know. I had many friends who had never seen a bill have to start paying their way. To this day I have friends waitressing with grad degrees because there are no entry level jobs. When I graduated I got a taste of the real world and resented the cotton candy everything is perfect don't you worry bout a thing darlin' upbringing and so did my peers. America can't put food on the table and I'm driving a f****** Lexus?! Meanwhile my government couldn't be more out of touch -- spray tanned white men in Valentino suits strategically bitching/flipping in order to maintain/capture their beloved votes. America's war on drugs? WHAT a joke. Last Thursday two guys I went to high school with OD'd together on heroin. The whole "he needs to straighten up/troubled kid/bad upbringing" doesn't apply anymore. Our justice system turns away raped prostitutes, "she had it coming". Oh and the marijuana debacle is truly entertaining.

Americans do want healthcare reform. It wouldn't need such reform had pharmaceutical and insurance companies been allowed to make our health so lucrative.
Where is the tax money going? The public schools are a nightmare where I live as well as the roadways. No effective public transportation ether. The prison system is useless. Throw someone in jail for a while, that'll teach em'. Could it be going in someone's pocket, wouldn't be surprised. Military? I don't care to be the biggest baddest nation in the land. In fact I think its obnoxious. I want our attitudes to change. I'm going to law school to do my part.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans are the party of personal responsibility for others

Not necessarily themselves

Funny that's what they say about Democrats.
Are we even now? Can we move on? Next?

Actually, we can't

The Republican "solution" to every social issue is personal responsibility. Welfare, healthcare, child support........get a freak'n job and take care of yourself

Yet, when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions, Republicans always have a fall guy. Liberal Media, low information voters, fixed elections

You are welcome to show a similar Democratic hypocricy

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

tl;dr

Just answer the question

 

[emilynghiem]

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

OK So CHANGE It.

Everyone benefits from the military. Obama had to keep the same wars going because you can't stop in the middle and just cut and run.

If you are going to say the Republicans have to come up with an alternative to ACA before yanking it,
then Democrats come up with an alternative and prove it works first.

Oh, check. Yes, the Democrats I know in my district DID come up with a plan for building sustainable campus models, and using THAT to rebuild and fortify oppressed war-torn and crime-ridden districts, such as in poor neighborhoods and across the border to stop the trafficking.

And guess what, the Democrats censored their own plans by their own constituents.
Garnet Coleman redirected TIRZ funds to HIS district AWAY from the model plans in the Fourth Ward.

The Mayors that redirected funds AWAY from these plans were all Democrats.

So the party has been censoring and sabotaging its own solutions.

I had to go to the GREENS and the peace and justice progressives, to push the idea of
issuing federal bonds AGAINST the war debts and other damages owed to taxpayers,
use CREDITS to redirect our tax debts into programs that would correct these problems,
and then build legal teams to HOLD wrongdoers responsible for paying back the debts, not us who didn't commit the abuses that racked up the debts.

George McGovern and other Democrats DID propose alternatives to investing military resources
into more stable avenues to replace the war effort in Iraq they opposed.

This was censored and not followed up on or promoted. I tried to get fellow Democrats to push it,
to show they weren't just against Bush but pushing for better WAYS to create stability.

But the only thing the party and its members would push for was to be AGAINST BUSH to get into the media with that instead of promoting SOLUTIONS in the media.

So if progressives like ME are the ones pushing solutions, rightwinger,
and WE are saying the corruption is equally among the Democrats
what does that tell you?

You cannot oppose Democrats like me and then say we have the solution
becuase you are part of why the solutions are being silenced.

When only the Democrats who are WILLING to point out our own party is corrupt
get SHUT DOWN.

The Democrats are worse about that. The Republicans are at least HONEST they have a divide
in their party ove getting rid of corrupt career politicians not enforcing the Constitution.

The Democrats have yet to oust their own leaders who are violating prochoice and inclusion of diversity.
They won't admit their wrongs because they have no Constitution to stand behind to show the source of their corrections.

They were too busy trying to circumvent the Constitution to use it to enforce laws and correct their own mistakes in judgment and policy. The Republicans who stand on the Constitution, they can correct their mistakes.

The only Democrats I can name who called for Constitutional enforcement to check Obama are me and John Cusack. There are over a dozen Democrats who pushed for corrections to the ACA, so I can look those up. At least one Congressman renounced it altogether.

If there are others, particular Vets, I hope we join toegther and correct our own party run amok.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

OK So CHANGE It.

Everyone benefits from the military. Obama had to keep the same wars going because you can't stop in the middle and just cut and run.

If you are going to say the Republicans have to come up with an alternative to ACA before yanking it,
then Democrats come up with an alternative and prove it works first.

Oh, check. Yes, the Democrats I know in my district DID come up with a plan for building sustainable campus models, and using THAT to rebuild and fortify oppressed war-torn and crime-ridden districts, such as in poor neighborhoods and across the border to stop the trafficking.

And guess what, the Democrats censored their own plans by their own constituents.
Garnet Coleman redirected TIRZ funds to HIS district AWAY from the model plans in the Fourth Ward.

The Mayors that redirected funds AWAY from these plans were all Democrats.

So the party has been censoring and sabotaging its own solutions.

I had to go to the GREENS and the peace and justice progressives, to push the idea of
issuing federal bonds AGAINST the war debts and other damages owed to taxpayers,
use CREDITS to redirect our tax debts into programs that would correct these problems,
and then build legal teams to HOLD wrongdoers responsible for paying back the debts, not us who didn't commit the abuses that racked up the debts.

George McGovern and other Democrats DID propose alternatives to investing military resources
into more stable avenues to replace the war effort in Iraq they opposed.

This was censored and not followed up on or promoted. I tried to get fellow Democrats to push it,
to show they weren't just against Bush but pushing for better WAYS to create stability.

But the only thing the party and its members would push for was to be AGAINST BUSH to get into the media with that instead of promoting SOLUTIONS in the media.

So if progressives like ME are the ones pushing solutions, rightwinger,
and WE are saying the corruption is equally among the Democrats
what does that tell you?

You cannot oppose Democrats like me and then say we have the solution
becuase you are part of why the solutions are being silenced.

When only the Democrats who are WILLING to point out our own party is corrupt
get SHUT DOWN.

The Democrats are worse about that. The Republicans are at least HONEST they have a divide
in their party ove getting rid of corrupt career politicians not enforcing the Constitution.

The Democrats have yet to oust their own leaders who are violating prochoice and inclusion of diversity.
They won't admit their wrongs because they have no Constitution to stand behind to show the source of their corrections.

They were too busy trying to circumvent the Constitution to use it to enforce laws and correct their own mistakes in judgment and policy. The Republicans who stand on the Constitution, they can correct their mistakes.

The only Democrats I can name who called for Constitutional enforcement to check Obama are me and John Cusack. There are over a dozen Democrats who pushed for corrections to the ACA, so I can look those up. At least one Congressman renounced it altogether.

If there are others, particular Vets, I hope we join toegther and correct our own party run amok.

You need to think before you type

With every simple statement you respond with a page full of verbal diarrhea that is mostly unrelated to the subject at hand

I am not even going to bother translating it

 

[Conservative65]

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.