Ron Paul chooses Vice Pres running mate

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by TheRedHorseman

Man, you really are a talk show parroting idiot.

Why, because I see what R.P's foreign policy really is ?
He reminds me of the attitude of the U.S. Congress in the late 1920's to 1930's.
If you don't agree I think you're drinking the R.P. koolaid.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Why, because I see what R.P's foreign policy really is ?

COTUS-based.

I guess you're not much of a COTUS supporter afterall.

[TheRedHorseman]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Why, because I see what R.P's foreign policy really is ?
He reminds me of the attitude of the U.S. Congress in the late 1920's to 1930's.
If you don't agree I think you're drinking the R.P. koolaid.

Find the quotes, find the videos that support your claims of isolationism and "head in the sand" strategy. Please, by all means do.

Because I can't find them.

Sure he wants to stop playing world police, but withdraw completely from world affairs? Umm, nope. The part of his speech that Rush and the gang doesn't play is where he points out that he doesn't want to do that. They just replay the parts that appeal to people like you.

[CRFRIDER]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

That's Commiforkistan. Here we have ways of handling those issues.

I am fairly certain if the majority funding to the lower class were to be pulled, the whole house of cards would tumble faster than it already is.

If it was easy to balance the budget by pulling all lower class funding, someone would have done it by now.

Who rents your rental homes?
Who rents your apartments?
Who buys your used car?
Who shops at the retail stores that your 401k is in?
etc...

We are a society you dolt. The Upper and Middle Class need the lower class to function. Pulling the rug out is not a solution.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by rockota

COTUS-based.

I guess you're not much of a COTUS supporter afterall.

Wrong once again Brian. Why don't you get a clue before you stalk me ?
Oh wait, that would require you to have intelligence.

[Dr.Danger]

Originally Posted by CRFRIDER

I am fairly certain if the majority funding to the lower class were to be pulled, the whole house of cards would tumble faster than it already is.

If it was easy to balance the budget by pulling all lower class funding, someone would have done it by now.

Who rents your rental homes?
Who rents your apartments?
Who buys your used car?
Who shops at the retail stores that your 401k is in?
etc...

We are a society you dolt. The Upper and Middle Class need the lower class to function. Pulling the rug out is not a solution.

It seems to me in welfare cases, the lower class IS NOT renting or buying anything. YOU are with your well spent tax dollars. To have them actually buy something, they would need to earn that money instead of re-spending yours.

Your first point may be correct though, unfortunately.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Wrong once again Brian. Why don't you get a clue before you stalk me ?
Oh wait, that would require you to have intelligence.

So it's not COTUS-based? Please inform me - give me a clue - on where his foreign policy is different from what the COTUS allows. Add to my intelligence on this issue, Gary, since you're clearly offended (hence the name calling) that you've been called out on it. Prove your stance - show me where RP is an isolationist and anti-constitutionalist and then explain why it is that you demand a interference-based foreign policy and how that lines up with COTUS.

I eagerly await your response.

[CRFRIDER]

Originally Posted by Dr.Danger

It seems to me in welfare cases, the lower class IS NOT renting or buying anything. YOU are with your well spent tax dollars. To have them actually buy something, they would need to earn that money instead of re-spending yours.

Your first point may be correct though, unfortunately.

Someone making 25k a year is probably getting assistance somewhere along the lines from the government. Be it a .gov backed loan, a .gov energy bill to keep the lights on, or something else to prop them up.

Pull that funding out, and I am sure the lights will stay on, and food will be on the table, before they pay rent.

[TJVigilante]

Originally Posted by CRFRIDER

Someone making 25k a year is probably getting assistance somewhere along the lines from the government. Be it a .gov backed loan, a .gov energy bill to keep the lights on, or something else to prop them up.

Pull that funding out, and I am sure the lights will stay on, and food will be on the table, before they pay rent.

Pull that funding out and you have working businesses, and successful people getting robbed at gunpoint. You have rioting from all of the freeloaders trying to make a point that they want their goodies and will beat, rob, and kill those who have them.

Instead of what really should happen: sell your unnecessary goodies to those who have the money to buy them, pay your rent, buy your food, pay your bills, and get a goddamn job. Or a second one.

My kids have state-assisted health care. I don't have any health care, neither does my wife. If that program ended tomorrow, I guess I'd have to get a winter job and pay for some insurance for my kids. But I justify it because I pay taxes, and eventually (pretty fucking soon, actually), I won't qualify for that assistance and for the rest of my working life I'll be paying it all back, and then some. I'm fine with that.

[Dr.Danger]

Originally Posted by CRFRIDER

Someone making 25k a year is probably getting assistance somewhere along the lines from the government. Be it a .gov backed loan, a .gov energy bill to keep the lights on, or something else to prop them up.

Pull that funding out, and I am sure the lights will stay on, and food will be on the table, before they pay rent.

Pure speculation. So I'll speculate too.

People will just have to work harder, like they used to before all of these programs were implemented.

The system is broken and you know it. We can't just keep blindly handing money out to people that aren't willing to work for it. Notice I didn't say can't work for it.

[Camarogenius]

Do you know why there's 9% unemployment? because people would rather suckle a teat than work. I understand unemployment. I DO NOT understand extending it for 2 years.

There are plenty of jobs out there, but most welfare recipients think that working for a living is "beneath them".

As I've said before. When they get hungry enough, they will work.

[CRFRIDER]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

Do you know why there's 9% unemployment? because people would rather suckle a teat than work. I understand unemployment. I DO NOT understand extending it for 2 years.

There are plenty of jobs out there, but most welfare recipients think that working for a living is "beneath them".

As I've said before. When they get hungry enough, they will work.

You are ignorant as to who is unemployed, and whom uses unemployment.

Do you truly think there are jobs available in every industry right now?

Many seasonal firefighters go on unemployment every year, you still want them fighting your wildfires in the summer right? (Just an FYI, many CA fire departments send their firefighters to other states for large fires every year. Your ignorant ass wouldn't know anything about that, because we are Commiefornia and we suck off the government teat)

Do you think retooling an agricultural worker who can't find a job do to a bad crop would happen in 8 weeks?


You use the term welfare very loosely. Name a specific welfare program you would cut all funding to today, right now?

[Dr.Danger]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

Do you know why there's 9% unemployment? because people would rather suckle a teat than work. I understand unemployment. I DO NOT understand extending it for 2 years.

There are plenty of jobs out there, but most welfare recipients think that working for a living is "beneath them".

As I've said before. When they get hungry enough, they will work.

Unemployment insurance should not be confused with welfare.

[Camarogenius]

Originally Posted by CRFRIDER

You are ignorant as to who is unemployed, and whom uses unemployment.

Do you truly think there are jobs available in every industry right now?

Many seasonal firefighters go on unemployment every year, you still want them fighting your wildfires in the summer right? (Just an FYI, many CA fire departments send their firefighters to other states for large fires every year. Your ignorant ass wouldn't know anything about that, because we are Commiefornia and we suck off the government teat)

Do you think retooling an agricultural worker who can't find a job do to a bad crop would happen in 8 weeks?


You use the term welfare very loosely. Name a specific welfare program you would cut all funding to today, right now?

End foodstamps, Medicaid, and welfare. There are tons of jobs out there, it's not my fault if they don't want to flip burgers or run a register.

Make all the justifications you want. NO MORE FREE RIDES. Period. end of line. Work or starve. I no longer give a damn. I don't care if you have to suck cawk to feed your kids. Giving a damn is what got us in this mess. We have to slough off the dead weight. Let darwin run wild.

[4xbrian]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

HMMM.

We're not "Defending" Germany or Japan. We are occupying. See, they tend to be naughty when left alone.

Bomb italy with soap and razors, and wish them well.

Without our presence in Korea, China would quickly play "Tibet".

Fork Iraq.

We're not defending Israel. We're victimizing them. If we would just back off and mind our own business in Israel, then the middle east would be a much more peaceful place.

Well I won't disagree with the occupying part. How long do we need to occupy these countries? A century? Do you REALLY think Germany and Japan are a threat to the US in 2012???? And do you think that these States aren't sucking off the teet of US defense? Therefore they can hold back on their own damn defense spending. And why wouldn't they; they know the Americans would defend them if SHTF. So fine, how about 'subsidizing their defense'? Why are conservatives (rightly) against socialized medicine for Americans, but all about socialized defense for foreigners?

As for Korea, how is it my obligation to defend their land? The DoD should be renamed to the Dept of Foreign Defense.

And Israel can handle itself, we seem to agree there to stop the Israel hand-wringing that goes on in (especially Republican) American politics. Yes?

[CRFRIDER]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

End foodstamps, Medicaid, and welfare. There are tons of jobs out there, it's not my fault if they don't want to flip burgers or run a register.

Make all the justifications you want. NO MORE FREE RIDES. Period. end of line. Work or starve. I no longer give a damn. I don't care if you have to suck cawk to feed your kids. Giving a damn is what got us in this mess. We have to slough off the dead weight. Let darwin run wild.

You don't want to feed Americans that can't afford to feed themselves. Sure there is abuse, but do you really not want to feed hungry kids?

Medicaid? Really? How will the doctors get paid? How will the hospitals get built? How will the private ambulance companies get paid? Do you want the hospitals to just pile the bodies up out front?

Your second attempt at a paragraph is just a bunch of redneck mumbo jumbo.

[JK3078]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

Do you know why there's 9% unemployment? because people would rather suckle a teat than work. I understand unemployment. I DO NOT understand extending it for 2 years.
I agree 100% and this shit pisses me off to no end. NO more extensions. I dont give a rats ass if you cant find a job making what you did "before". Why should working people pay you to sit on your ass waiting for high paying job?

There are plenty of jobs out there, but most welfare recipients think that working for a living is "beneath them".
Some think that others realize they can ride on the dole and live as good or better than us working fools.

As I've said before. When they get hungry enough, they will work.
I agree, hunger is a great motivator.

Two other things that piss me off is the "cant find work" and "jobs Americans wont do" BS. The only time I have ever not had a job in my life was when I didn't want one. I have also done some of the shittiest jobs you can imagine when I needed to would do them again if I had no other choice.

Welfare is a fairly new thing. People got by before because they had to and they will get by after its gone also. A middle class life style IS NOT A RIGHT.

The reality of life on this big round rock is you either figure it out or you dont. Not all seeds sprout, not all baby turtles make it to sea and shits not "fair".

[Camarogenius]

Originally Posted by CRFRIDER

You don't want to feed Americans that can't afford to feed themselves. Sure there is abuse, but do you really not want to feed hungry kids?

Medicaid? Really? How will the doctors get paid? How will the hospitals get built? How will the private ambulance companies get paid? Do you want the hospitals to just pile the bodies up out front?

Your second attempt at a paragraph is just a bunch of redneck mumbo jumbo.

It's not the government's problem to worry about this, and it's not the government's right to forcibly take money away from me to give to other people.

Help should come from family and community. Not Government. Government can't/won't distinguish between real need and abuse.

Your family, your church, and the people you interact with daily know you, and know how much effort you're putting out, and know if you really need help.

They also know if you're milking the system, claiming a "bad back" and getting disability, meanwhile, you're out riding four wheelers, and playing on a bar-league softball team while I go out and bust my ass to earn your paycheck.

So again I say work or starve. NO MORE FREE RIDES.

[CRFRIDER]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

It's not the government's problem to worry about this, and it's not the government's right to forcibly take money away from me to give to other people.

Help should come from family and community. Not Government. Government can't/won't distinguish between real need and abuse.

Your family, your church, and the people you interact with daily know you, and know how much effort you're putting out, and know if you really need help.

They also know if you're milking the system, claiming a "bad back" and getting disability, meanwhile, you're out riding four wheelers, and playing on a bar-league softball team while I go out and bust my ass to earn your paycheck.

So again I say work or starve. NO MORE FREE RIDES.

No, you outlined no free rides for those that cheat the system and steal. I agree with that 100%

Your opinion is everyone is cheating the system.

Have you ever even known someone that was cheating the system?

What did you personally do about it?

[Camarogenius]

Originally Posted by CRFRIDER

No, you outlined no free rides for those that cheat the system and steal. I agree with that 100%

Your opinion is everyone is cheating the system.

Have you ever even known someone that was cheating the system?

What did you personally do about it?

I'm saying that there shouldn't even be a system to cheat to begin with.

I've had hard times, and my church rallied to help us out. Similarly, other members had hard times, and we rallied to help them. No government involvement needed. I've never taken a dime of welfare or disability, even though I could be making good bank on a disability that I'm more than qualified for. I'm not a hypocrite. I don't expect any more from anyone else than I expect from myself.

[TJVigilante]

Originally Posted by Camarogenius

I'm saying that there shouldn't even be a system to cheat to begin with.

I've had hard times, and my church rallied to help us out. Similarly, other members had hard times, and we rallied to help them. No government involvement needed. I've never taken a dime of welfare or disability, even though I could be making good bank on a disability that I'm more than qualified for. I'm not a hypocrite. I don't expect any more from anyone else than I expect from myself.

And in effect you're saying that even the homeless kids out there can starve.

Instead of streamlining these systems and auditing them better to mitigate or eliminate abuses, you just say to do away with them altogether?

Until people in general start giving enough to cover the costs of widespread social programs, even for those truly in need, taxation will have to suffice.

I guess under your system, more jobs will be created digging graves for all those starved disabled individuals and children.

Strange how someone who quotes his church's good deeds now invokes the name of Darwin when it comes to someone taking his money.

[Camarogenius]

Originally Posted by TJVigilante

And in effect you're saying that even the homeless kids out there can starve.

Instead of streamlining these systems and auditing them better to mitigate or eliminate abuses, you just say to do away with them altogether?

Until people in general start giving enough to cover the costs of widespread social programs, even for those truly in need, taxation will have to suffice.

I guess under your system, more jobs will be created digging graves for all those starved disabled individuals and children.

Strange how someone who quotes his church's good deeds now invokes the name of Darwin when it comes to someone taking his money.

You are purposly ignoring my point. It's not the government's job or right to play robin hood. I would think that you're smart enough to know that I used darwin metaphorically, because it makes a point that otherwise would have taken a couple paragraphs to explain.

People got by just fine before uncle sugar started giving away other people's money.

Also, life is rough. Not everyone survives. If you want to be one of the lucky ones, you have to put forth effort on your own behalf.

[TJVigilante]

Actually, people didn't get along just fine before Uncle Sam started bailing out the unfortunate. People were starving in the streets. People were flat-out dying after losing their homes and not finding work to pay for food. Churches didn't do enough, and there was a higher proportion of faithful back then, and much fewer people overall. But back when it started, people in general still had the hard work ethic, and there were just not enough jobs. Now is different. People don't have the work ethic to do the jobs that exist.

But you're ignoring everyone else's point: that there are occasional circumstances where people are flat fucking unable to fend for themselves. So either you claim that they should die and cull the herd, or they should rely on the good nature of other people barely scraping by, and nothing whatsoever should be done by the government. Hooray, propose that a government ignore its starving masses and look like complete shit to the rest of the world.

Maybe if the US could survive on zero imports could you say "fuck what everyone else thinks". If you heard about a government in Africa not lifting a finger to help its starving people, you'd cry out in disgust at them. Yet you're suggesting the US government do the exact same thing.

[Camarogenius]

Originally Posted by TJVigilante

Actually, people didn't get along just fine before Uncle Sam started bailing out the unfortunate. People were starving in the streets. People were flat-out dying after losing their homes and not finding work to pay for food. Churches didn't do enough, and there was a higher proportion of faithful back then, and much fewer people overall. But back when it started, people in general still had the hard work ethic, and there were just not enough jobs. Now is different. People don't have the work ethic to do the jobs that exist.

But you're ignoring everyone else's point: that there are occasional circumstances where people are flat fucking unable to fend for themselves. So either you claim that they should die and cull the herd, or they should rely on the good nature of other people barely scraping by, and nothing whatsoever should be done by the government. Hooray, propose that a government ignore its starving masses and look like complete shit to the rest of the world.

Maybe if the US could survive on zero imports could you say "fuck what everyone else thinks". If you heard about a government in Africa not lifting a finger to help its starving people, you'd cry out in disgust at them. Yet you're suggesting the US government do the exact same thing.

43% of the population is sucking the teat in some fashion. If you try to pick and choose who you throw off, then that's discrimination. The only logical answer is to throw everyone off. That's the only rational choice.

When birds jump out of the nest, not all of them fly. It's just a fact of life.

Oh, and my Bible says "If a man will not work, let him not eat".

[TJVigilante]

It can't be discrimination if you throw off people who:

1: refuse to work.
2: cheat the system by claiming more dependents
3: use the money for inappropriate products
4: test positive for drugs
5: have felony criminal records. (these guys can get work placement. I'd much rather my tax dollars go towards actually reforming criminals instead of just enabling them.) This also includes those who engage in criminal activity...seeing as how you need to prove that they're doing these things, they will naturally have a record.

None of those reasons could ever be mistaken for discrimination. Otherwise anyone who gets fired for anything similar can also claim discrimination.

The problem of people abusing the systems is exacerbated by the fact that these systems have been changed and re-worked practically for the purpose of allowing them to abuse the programs even more easily. Crack down, change procedures, give people a shopping list of things they want that has been approved, and instead of giving them cash, give them the items.

Sure, they can still sell what they get and buy other crap, but if they're audited at all (home inspections, etc) it should be easy to see if someone's living beyond their means.