Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 125

Thread: Do you hate the poor?

  1. #61
    Interesting topic.

    Food for thought:

    Look at the most impoverished ghetto-cities in the country, where the poor have gotten poorer, education is terrible, crime is terrible, etc etc. Those cities have been under democratic control for decades. Liberal "help the poor" policies have condemned poverty-stricken communities to perpetual nanny-state handouts. The poor in this country have been sold-out by the dems/progs. "Vote for me and I'll keep giving you free $#@!" is pretty much every liberal candidate's mantra. What we have is a social "spider web", not a "safety net."

    I am not an anarchist. I think minimalism and decentralization of government would solve many of today's big-government messes. Do I "hate" the poor? No. That's a laughable OP. Do I think almost half of MY earnings and life's work should go to a government that wastes almost all of it in the Bureaucracy? I would agree with the statement that almost all poverty is voluntary. Disabilities and the like should be taken into consideration and provided for. Where we diverge is who/how. Should the FEDERAL government tax my earnings, waste $.90 of every dollar paying federal workers and such, then issue EBT cards and SSI/SSDI benefits? No. Localities, city/town/, county, then states should VOLUNTARILY choose how best to handle the issue that is unique to each geographic/socioeconomic area. Bureaucrats in DC (who, if you can believe it, don't actually care about the poor or your best interest) should not even have a say in the matter.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    One of my favorite solutions, only tax the voters. Alternatively, only tax the voters who really agree with and like the taxes.

    No violence, force or coercion, therefore no theft.

  4. #63
    Why do you hate the poor, donnie darko?

    Why do you support and applaud the government for calling something which does exactly nothing at all to insure people against financial ruination in the event of a catastrophe "insurance"? Why do you applaud government for shoving this stuff down our throats with a mandate, even though it does nothing at all? Why do you think it a jolly fine thing that real insurers are allowed to abrogate contractural agreements and drop paying customers--in other words, to discriminate on the basis of age--because when they turn 65 the government forces something mislabeled "insurance" upon them, thus making their real insurance ostensibly redundant and unnecessary? Why do you applaud when this "insurance" leads to innocent seniors being stripped of all they own by the very government that you say loves us and wants us to be happy?

    Why do you hate the poor, donnie darko?

    Quote Originally Posted by moostraks View Post
    Since the subforum is titled family, and there has been an uptick in social service abuse of authority cases, I thought it would be beneficial to remind folks of the other family members being targeted by the government, seniors. Google has made it interesting to try and research this issue as top results without the correct keywords will have you stumbling for ages to find the stories now.

    As insidious as the implications of this headline are, the truth may be much worse. A startling trend is beginning to arise across the nation. Senior Citizens are being checked into hospitals for routine surgeries and are not being allowed to leave. Other seniors are being forcibly removed from their homes by adult protective agencies and institutionalized in mental hospitals. The clincher to this violation? Those same seniors are having their homes sold, their bank accounts drained and their assets liquidated to pay for it all—against their will...

    These are far from isolated cases. Advocates believe there are more than 40,000 people like Fink, Brannan, and Winkleman. Critics say this system, easily set in motion, is notoriously difficult to stop. Numerous stories have emerged of State Agencies with a ruthless determination to take elders from their homes and have their belongings sold, and their family and friends shut out. This process often ignores basic individual rights and most of it plays out in secret, with hearings and files typically closed from the public.
    https://shastalantern.net/2014/12/go...-their-assets/
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  5. #64
    Why do YOU hate the poor enough to vote for Democrats, donnie darko?

    Quote Originally Posted by aGameOfThrones View Post
    One evening last month, as custodian Tracy Martin took in a Detroit Pistons game at the Palace of Auburn Hills, her cell phone rang. “They’re towing your car,” her husband, who is paralyzed, told her. Later, when Martin arrived home, she found a flyer left behind by the Highland Park Police, which along with the police departments of neighboring Ecorse and Hamtramck, belonged to the COBRA Multijurisdictional Auto Task Force.

    The leaflet, placed where her 2004 Ford truck had been parked, explained that Martin’s vehicle had been towed as a result of auto insurance fraud; it also listed a number for her to call.

    “They said I couldn’t get my vehicle back, I have to wait to get it at auction,” Martin said, recounting that first conversation. “Then I talked to someone else who gave me an appointment to talk to a detective, but [he said] my best bet was to be ready to buy it back at auction.”

    A task force representative told Martin her vehicle was towed after an insurance company reported her fraudulent policy to the Michigan Secretary of State, which checks proof of insurance when it issues license plates. The Secretary of State, in turn, was required to contact the police after it was notified of the fraud. So Martin called the Secretary of State’s office, and spoke with someone who told her the office “doesn’t tow vehicles for insurance fraud.”

    With no apparent recourse to retrieve her car, Martin has resigned herself to buying it back at auction. Authorities have not given her an auction date.

    “I called Progressive,” she said, “and they’re like, it’s a whole lot of you all in Detroit. There are many victims there.”

    Martin was taken in by a widening scam in which crooks, posing as auto insurance agents, prey on working people struggling to find affordable policies. Under the scam, the perpetrator offers auto insurance for a low price — low because the scammer, posing as a broker, will buy an authentic policy using fraudulent means of payment, keeping the policy just long enough to collect a proof of insurance card.

    The racket is a growing problem in New York City and South Florida, according to an insurance industry group, but seems most prevalent in Michigan, where premiums are inflated by a state mandate that drivers purchase insurance plans which have unlimited lifetime medical benefits, among other features. Victims in Michigan are thrown even deeper into crisis when police, as is common there, accuse victims of being in on the scam and seize their vehicles and other assets under civil forfeiture laws.

    The scam and seizures show how crooks and cops can end up working in concert to further imperil those already on the economic brink. Indeed, in this case, low-income residents are pinched at every turn. They start off with especially high insurance premiums, consumer advocates argue, because insurance companies sometimes charge people in low-income communities more for auto insurance in a practice some have labeled modern redlining.


    Robbed twice: First by criminals, then by cops

    The forfeiture of Martin’s truck would hardly be worth noting if not for the widespread practice, on the part of Michigan authorities, of seizing the vehicles and other assets of innocent Michiganders. The Institute for Justice ranks Michigan among the worst states in the union when it comes to the controversial practice, known as civil forfeiture, which is ripe for abuse by state law enforcement agencies.

    Police frequently pressure victims of insurance fraud to “admit” they were a party to the fraud — which would be a felony offense. Detroit resident Tracey Rodriguez claimed this happened to her; she said COBRA seized her car and attempted to coerce a confession of insurance fraud out of her.

    She resisted, but under pressure “signed a settlement waiving her rights and paid $345 to the task force and $445 to get her car from B&G Towing in Detroit,” according to Fox 2 News. Rodriguez claimed she had little choice with four children who needed to get back and forth to school.

    Michigan’s aggressive use of civil forfeiture laws goes well beyond the tales of Martin and Rodriguez. Between 2001 and 2008, according to state documents, Michigan seized more than $149 million in property and cash. In 2013 alone, police agencies reported $24.3 million in asset forfeitures. Some agencies, however, refused to submit figures, meaning the amount could be even higher.

    One 2008 incident perfectly demonstrated how Michigan authorities both abuse forfeiture laws and terrorize innocent people.

    In May 2008, during a party at Detroit’s Contemporary Art Institute, police seized the vehicles of 44 patrons because the museum hadn’t acquired a license to serve liquor after 2 a.m. The police claimed they believed the patrons to be complicit. The ACLU described a harrowing scene where police, dressed completely in black and armed with high-powered weaponry, stormed the museum and forced terrified partygoers to the ground.

    After the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the police over the incident, Detroit dropped the charges against the revelers, though many victims were still forced to pay nearly $900 to retrieve their seized vehicles.

    In 2012, a federal judge declared the museum raid and seizures unconstitutional because revelers were unaware the museum lacked the proper alcohol permit. Earlier this year, the city settled with the remaining “CAID Raid” victims for $175,000.

    Forfeiture is common in Michigan in part because it’s so easy for the police to seize assets and property; state laws do not require a court hearing for seized assets worth less than $50,000. And in many cases, despite no charges being filed, the property is not returned.

    “They take your $#@! and then ask questions later,” said Charmie Gholson, a local activist with Michigan Moms United, a group working to reform the state’s civil assets forfeiture laws.

    “A lot of these southeast Michigan cities have become more clever when it comes to fleecing people.”

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-fleeces-poor/
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-24-2015 at 06:19 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    One of my favorite solutions, only tax the voters. Alternatively, only tax the voters who really agree with and like the taxes.

    No violence, force or coercion, therefore no theft.
    OH MAN!!! I've been saying something like this forever, but not just against the libs, but the cons as well. Make a "You Talk It You Walk It" Amendment.

    -So some NeoCon pumps their fist for war, let's have a vote, whoever votes for it is immediately enlisted and put on the front lines, if they are too old or disabled their assets are seized and used to pay their portion of the cost.

    -Same with libs, they want program " " they agree to have their checks docked and/or are now obligated to work several hours (varying depending on if they are employed or not) a week at a school, nursing home, hospital, etc.

    -Anyone who doesn't want to control the border, you just took legal custody of an illegal alien family, you are responsible for their food, medical care, housing, schooling, etc, and since virtually none of them have chiggers, lice, chagas, or other disease, you'll have no issue with them using your pillows and covers and playing with your children, and since few of them are gang members you won't mind them being around your teen daughter.

    I tell you what, if we implemented my "You Talk It You Walk It" Amendment, I guarantee this country would get a WHOLE lot quieter.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    OH MAN!!! I've been saying something like this forever, but not just against the libs, but the cons as well.

    -Anyone who doesn't want to control the border, you just took legal custody of an illegal alien family, you are responsible for their food, medical care, housing, schooling, etc,
    You were doing fine until the last one. It should read:
    "If you want to keep illegals out, either pay for border protection or patrol the border yourself."
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You were doing fine until the last one. It should read:
    "If you want to keep illegals out, either pay for border protection or patrol the border yourself."
    Hey, no problem, the amendment would apply to me as well, so absolutely, if there is anything I'd happily be taxed for, it's that, but are you going to accept the other side of that? How many illegals are you currently providing food, housing, medical care, schooling for? How many live in your home? I think I know the answer.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    Hey, no problem, the amendment would apply to me as well, so absolutely, if there is anything I'd happily be taxed for, it's that, but are you going to accept the other side of that? How many illegals are you currently providing food, housing, medical care, schooling for? How many live in your home? I think I know the answer.
    You are struggling with your own premise.
    You are arguing for a coercive state, in the guise of freedom from coercion.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You are struggling with your own premise.
    You are arguing for a coercive state, in the guise of freedom from coercion.
    Oh, of course, I know, having a border is coercive, enforcing that border is coercive. Let me ask you this, myself and a group of say 300 people buy up several thousand acres, and we go there and form a community, we have our own rules for that community which many may agree or disagree with but the point is, everyone there wanted those rules, voluntarily moved there agreeing to those rules, and best of all, no one is forced to stay there and can leave at any time (unless they've killed someone or something).

    So, do we have a right in your mind to do that? To establish the property lines of our community? To determine who can and can't come into our community? Is that a "coercive state" to you? If you say no, then tell me why that same thing can't be done on a larger scale such as country? Why is it somehow anti-liberty for people to form a country and have borders and say who can and can't cross those borders?

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    Oh, of course, I know, having a border is coercive, enforcing that border is coercive. Let me ask you this, myself and a group of say 300 people buy up several thousand acres, and we go there and form a community, we have our own rules for that community which many may agree or disagree with but the point is, everyone there wanted those rules, voluntarily moved there agreeing to those rules, and best of all, no one is forced to stay there and can leave at any time (unless they've killed someone or something).

    So, do we have a right in your mind to do that? To establish the property lines of our community? To determine who can and can't come into our community? Is that a "coercive state" to you? If you say no, then tell me why that same thing can't be done on a larger scale such as country? Why is it somehow anti-liberty for people to form a country and have borders and say who can and can't cross those borders?
    This isn't about illegal immigration. You are missing the point.
    In your first case...foreign wars, what is forced on me if I abstain from voting? Can a neocon hold me accountable for a terrorist attack on American soil?
    In your second case, the welfare state, what is forced on me if I abstain from voting? Can a liberal demand I shelter a homeless American?
    In your third case, what is forced on me if I abstain from voting? Can a paleo force me to house an illegal alien?

    Your argument is inconsistent.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    This isn't about illegal immigration. You are missing the point.
    In your first case...foreign wars, what is forced on me if I abstain from voting? Can a neocon hold me accountable for a terrorist attack on American soil?
    In your second case, the welfare state, what is forced on me if I abstain from voting? Can a liberal demand I shelter a homeless American?
    In your third case, what is forced on me if I abstain from voting? Can a paleo force me to house an illegal alien?

    Your argument is inconsistent.
    Say what? I thought I said quite clearly the person who votes "Yes" on any of those things is the one responsible for it, what is unclear about it? If you didn't vote, then obviously you didn't vote "Yes" so why would you be responsible for anything, my argument is most certainly not inconsistent, your argument makes no sense. If no one votes "Yes" at all out of fear of actually having to shoulder the burden of the things they so passionately champion then obviously the measure would fail and nothing happens at all.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    This isn't about illegal immigration. You are missing the point.
    No, this is one of those rare cases where you're missing the point.

    This dude came here to disrupt productive discussions about why the cops executed nine people in Waco. That didn't work.

    Then he went after a consolation prize--he tried to disrupt a conversation about how much more dangerous cops chasing speeders are than the speeders themselves. That didn't work.

    So, he saw us building this thread into a source of talking points to refute progs with. So he decided to spam it for a few pages with this Xerographic hijack.

    Not that he's not having a wet dream that the cops can know who does and doesn't approve of them, and can refuse to save the ones who don't from the clutches of John Wayne Gacy. Of course, the cops only arrive on the scene before John Wayne Gacy kills the innocent in the movies, not in real life, so his wet dream is just a pipe dream.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-25-2015 at 07:03 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    No, this is one of those rare cases where you're missing the point.

    This dude came here to disrupt productive discussions about why the cops executed nine people in Waco. That didn't work.

    Then he went after a consolation prize--he tried to disrupt a conversation about how much more dangerous cops chasing speeders are than the speeders themselves. That didn't work.

    So, he saw us building this thread into a source of talking points to refute progs with. So he decided to spam it for a few pages with this Xerographic hijack.

    Not that he's not having a wet dream that the cops can know who does and doesn't approve of them, and can refuse to save the ones who don't from the clutches of John Wayne Gacy. Of course, the cops only arrive on the scene before John Wayne Gacy kills the innocent in the movies, not in real life, so his wet dream is just a pipe dream.
    You stalking me now? Keep going, you are amusing I must say. What are your thoughts on 9/11 if I may ask? Chemtrails? I heard something recently about some base on...Saturn, any opinions?

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    You stalking me now? Keep going, you are amusing I must say. What are your thoughts on 9/11 if I may ask? Chemtrails? I heard something recently about some base on...Saturn, any opinions?
    Who is stalking whom, again...?

    Sorry. I didn't notice you were in this thread ahead of me. Oh, wait...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Who is stalking whom, again...?

    Sorry. I didn't notice you were in this thread ahead of me. Oh, wait...
    Did I reply to you? Was I even remotely speaking to you? No, yet you still felt compelled to insert yourself into the conversation with more of your paranoid assumptions which were completely irrelevant to anything being discussed. Tell ya what, how about from here on in we just ignore each other - deal?

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    Did I reply to you? Was I even remotely speaking to you? No, yet you still felt compelled to insert yourself into the conversation with more of your paranoid assumptions. Tell ya what, how about from here on in we just ignore each other - deal?
    Nope.

    I don't suffer threadjackers gladly. I wasn't asking for a smorgasbord of options of topics for you to hijack this thread and disrupt this discussion with. I was stating that this thread was working better while it was on topic.

    Keep disrupting conversations, or stating cooked statistics (whether they are on topic or not), and I will be there. Unless, of course, one of the many other members with no stomach for b.s. beats me to you.

    And whether I'm paranoid or not has no bearing on these two facts:

    1. You're transparent.

    2. Several of us do have you pegged. You prove us right with nearly every post.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-25-2015 at 08:08 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Nope.

    I don't suffer threadjackers gladly. I wasn't asking for a smorgasbord of options of topics for you to hijack this thread and disrupt this discussion with. I was stating that this thread was working better while it was on topic.

    Keep disrupting conversations, or stating cooked statistics (whether they are on topic or not), and I will be there.
    Lol, said by the guy who is posting things that have nothing to do with this topic. Likewise, you're obviously a tad ignorant of the fact that the discussion about speeding (which you grossly twisted my words on) was in a post about a doctor who got pulled over for speeding, crazy that under a post about speeding I might be talking about.....speed. As for the biker thing, for the umpteenth time I never said jack one way or the other about it other than I am reserving judgement, and I challenge you to show where I said otherwise.

  21. #78
    You seem to be having a little difficulty with your reading comprehension.

    I didn't say you hijacked any thread but this one. Yet.

    No matter how many potential topics you heap on that buffet table, I'm not going to pick one and help you further hijack this thread. The only things I've posted to this thread which have nothing to do with the topic were defenses from your attacks and hijacks.

    Why do you hate the poor, HankRichter? Because the insurance lobby pays the legislators to pay you to?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-25-2015 at 08:27 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by donnie darko View Post
    How would you personally help the poor? Do you expect private charity and family to fill all the gaps, do you support a UBI, or do you think free market economics, even in the age of automation and globalization, can guarantee everyone a good paying job if only they get up off their feet and want it?
    We can start by getting government out of their way. Consider Detroit's "Operation Compliance". In the ashes of urban decay, capitalism blossoms, only to be crushed by progressives.
    The Free Market allows those who wish to be successful do so, and those who are parasites starve; unfortunately the Free Market is illegal in Amerika.
    A Just society does not alienate an individual from the consequences of his behavior.
    Claiming that one can not provide for themselves due to their condition, rather than their commission, is nothing less than ivory-tower bigotry.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #80
    At OP. I respect your questions and willingness to vet your own beliefs. I have attempted to do the same with the socialist left. Unfortunately the well-intentioned olive branch I extended quickly got me banned on democratic underground.

    Back to your original point/question...

    In my eyes the state and its strongest proponents have used the disenfranchised and the mentally as well as socially inhibited to evade criticism of the entire government as a whole.

    I find it hard to not reach the conclusion that the vast majority of the world's problems can be linked to the state.

    The black culture has been bathed in the state, and is an abysmal failure by any reasonable metric, be it their economic strata, or legitimacy, literacy and incarceration rates.

    Feminism has destroyed the relationships between most of the sexes, marriage is plummeting, and the family is almost dead.

    We can start with these two since their so related. Look at the statistical data between families that had fathers and those that did not. Why is this? Well I can only speak from the male perspective, but as a man we are expected to practice the type of behavior that will get us respected and not picked on by our peers. There are many different ways to achieve this end, but usually the moral routes can only be undertaken by a seasoned social animal.

    Through our fathers we learn how to behave in society by modeling or even duplicating their behavior until we are independently minded enough to come up with behavioral modes on our own. Without our father in our lives, the televisions and media becomes our father, and we will emulate the male behavior being portrayed by seemingly successful males in other places.

    If all people were to only get their morality from the western media, what kind of ethics do you think that person would have? We're seeing the results of it now...

    So how is this the government's fault? Well, the welfare state has allowed precisely this type of environment to grow and thrive, because most of a man's utility can be provided by the state.

    Okay all social points, what about economics?

    Well how many people who have been entrenched in the welfare system for generations are working their asses off in school to get out of it, taking on additional shifts at work, seeking a promotion, or attempting to release themselves from their current condition? I'm CERTAIN there are exceptions and good people on these programs who may need it more than others, BUT a multitude of individuals are told they cannot increase their social standing because they will no longer qualify for social assistance. So these programs de-incentivize working. I'm sure it's pretty close to irrefutable that these programs, whose well-intentioned aim to level the playing field of wealth inequality have done the very opposite. This is very unsurprising for a government program however.

    That's just entitlement programs, what about regulations that sew up the market so that only corporate titans can compete, or FDA regulations that criminalizes people practicing alternative medicine, the drug war which has put more drugs on our streets than ever and multiplied drug use, or $#@!ing foreign policy, which I this whole post could have been about.

    When you add it all up, is the government doing more good than bad or vice versa. I don't think their doing much good at all, and the little good that they are doing could be delivered in a much more effective manner, if so many resources were not squandered into government failure programs, which even the ones everyone hates are still almost impossible to get rid of.

    So what would I do to help the poor?

    Well a TON of this situation has to do with our monetary policy. If the Federal Reserve did not LOAN are government money at INTEREST, then we would not be slaves to making minimum interest payments and a great deal more resources would flow to the middle class and below, these would come in the way of jobs, additional opportunities, lower prices on goods which would in turn create more prosperity.

    Then get rid of the income tax at the same time. Imagine if you could keep all the money you earned, talk about a huge overnight stimulus that does not lead to a bubble. This would give people with good and decent jobs HUGE raises in the way of tons more money, and would make low wage jobs look a lot more attractive.

    Finally, tell everyone who is getting assistance unless they are physically incapable of working due to a medical condition, that they have one year to make find a job a make themselves self sufficient. Those who get jobs early will not be penalized by the reduction of their benefits until the one year mark.

    In a society that rich and prosperous do we really think we would not take care of our old, sick and dying? It was not that way with elders in tribal societies.

    I bet the dependent underclass would be all but gone in a few generations.

    So what system is more humanitarian?



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by donnie darko View Post
    A lot of anti-libertarians think that libertarians hate the working poor because they oppose workers' rights and generally lionize business owners and share holders above workers (for example most libertarians are fiercely anti-union, anti-minimum wage and anything remotely "Socialist"), hate people with disabilities because they oppose things like SSI and SSDI, though a small but vocal minority of libertarians do support UBI, and hate the homeless because most libertarians support anti-homeless/anti-panhandling laws, which is kind of ironic to me being they are a "statist" intervention in themselves but most libertarians I've spoken to seem quite anti-homeless and don't seem to have a problem with the police using force against them for disturbing business activity by sleeping on the street, begging etc.

    How would you personally help the poor? Do you expect private charity and family to fill all the gaps, do you support a UBI, or do you think free market economics, even in the age of automation and globalization, can guarantee everyone a good paying job if only they get up off their feet and want it?
    I can almost see the speech bubbles emerging from your non-avatar; are you a comic book character?
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834

  26. #82
    He may be on to something. Every libertarian meeting I've been to was kicked off with this song:


  27. #83
    Related : I posted some charitable links on FB to help victims of the floods yesterday in Central Texas. Some people's homes were completely washed off their slabs. One of my liberal friends from Washington state messaged me and said she wasn't going to donate because anyone who lives in a state like Texas deserves what they get. I am not kidding.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    Related : I posted some charitable links on FB to help victims of the floods yesterday in Central Texas. Some people's homes were completely washed off their slabs. One of my liberal friends from Washington state messaged me and said she wasn't going to donate because anyone who lives in a state like Texas deserves what they get. I am not kidding.
    The compassion of liberals is just overwhelming, is it not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The compassion of liberals is just overwhelming, is it not?

    Yes and I said something like that when I explained why she would no longer be on my friend list. I was kind of stunned.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    Yes and I said something like that when I explained why she would no longer be on my friend list. I was kind of stunned.
    I would not be stunned by it. Look at how liberals support women - unless they are right wing, look how they support gays - unless they are right wing, look how they support blacks, hispanics, pick your category unless they are right wing.

    It's all about whatever furthers their own influence. Just look at Hollywood, they make movies about "inner beauty" yet they are all hot, and the men, once their wives hit 40, trade them in for younger wives. They love the poor, the minorities, the illegal aliens, etc, yet they all live in high class lily white gated communities far removed from it all. They love the environment yet fly in planes, and enjoy all the modern technology that fossil fuels provide, they bash the rich yet they themselves are rich, have accountants, are incorporated, and work for Hollywood which is the very model of excess. In short, they are all hypocrites, even the little ones.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    Yes and I said something like that when I explained why she would no longer be on my friend list. I was kind of stunned.
    But it goes right to the heart of it, doesn't it?

    We will steal all your money, and if you complain we'll tell everyone you hate the poor. But what we're really after is to make you poor, so you'll be willing to jump through our hoops to get your own money back.

    The only stunning thing is that she let her guard down enough to admit that in public.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    I would not be stunned by it. Look at how liberals support women - unless they are right wing, look how they support gays - unless they are right wing, look how they support blacks, hispanics, pick your category unless they are right wing.

    It's all about whatever furthers their own influence. Just look at Hollywood, they make movies about "inner beauty" yet they are all hot, and the men, once their wives hit 40, trade them in for younger wives. They love the poor, the minorities, the illegal aliens, etc, yet they all live in high class lily white gated communities far removed from it all. They love the environment yet fly in planes, and enjoy all the modern technology that fossil fuels provide, they bash the rich yet they themselves are rich, have accountants, are incorporated, and work for Hollywood which is the very model of excess. In short, they are all hypocrites, even the little ones.

    Oh I agree. In my experience some of the most vitriolic political comments come from libs as well.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    But it goes right to the heart of it, doesn't it?

    We will steal all your money, and if you complain we'll tell everyone you hate the poor. But what we're really after is to make you poor, so you'll be willing to jump through our hoops to get your own money back.

    The only stunning thing is that she let her guard down enough to admit that in public.

    Yes...they only want to help when it's using someone else's money...ie, tax dollars.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    Yes...they only want to help when it's using someone else's money...ie, tax dollars.
    That, and they aren't half as interested in helping you survive as 'helping' you toe their line.

    Which is why they spend so much more time dreaming up ways to make people poorer than ways to make people richer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2018, 10:09 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 11:01 AM
  3. Are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor?
    By TheCaliforniaLife in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-18-2010, 05:47 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 05:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •