If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Tennessean)   Never having heard of Florida, new Tennessee law requires welfare recipients to undergo drug testing   (tennessean.com) divider line 228
    More: Fail, welfare recipients, psychological testing, Tenn, Bill Haslam, drug testing, Department of Human Services, Medical prescription, laws take effect  
•       •       •

1436 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 12:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-01 03:16:04 PM  

X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So, the taxes necessary to pay for an orderly society are now extortion?

Yes, please do. Move to the libertarian utopia of Somalia.


It's extortion of my options are "give me money or I will burn your house down." I believe that mobsters collecting money from various stores in their territory in exchange for not throwing a Molotov cocktail through the window has been deemed illegal for just that very reason.

Do you think that I should be happy with paying for a welfare queen to live in a house on my dime for generation after generation? Happy with her saying "if you don't keep sending me my check I'll get up off my couch where I'm watching my flat screen TV, get in my car with brand new rims, and drive over to your house and rob you so that I don't have to work?" And your response, rather than shooting her or letting her starve, is to throw money at her so that you can remain quivering in the corner in a puddle of your own urine? "Please don't hurt me nice less fortunate lady, please take my money and leave me alone."
 
2012-07-01 03:20:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."


So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?
 
2012-07-01 03:22:31 PM  

Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?


Supply Side Jesus said there is infinite wealth, they just need to get off their asses and create jobs themselves.
 
2012-07-01 03:27:03 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: The right-wing is struggling today with what they believe in. I'd like to think that Romney's appointment to be their candidate was a big factor, but they've been struggling about what their platform is for at least a decade now. The only issue is that they were able to ignore that when they had power from 2002-2006 and now are ripping at the seams.

They desperately want to use their innate power to back a status quo to work when that status quo really doesn't exist. Republicans are very prone to media manipulation and they really don't know the world around them. The insularity of the Republican base is one of the main reasons they're no longer being taken seriously as a political ideology anymore: they have narrowed down their entire reason for being as a pure opposition party. That's the only thing they can agree on, outside of some nebulous terminology that has been co-opted to vote more Republicans into office. Note how many Republicans you see today who sort to a pathetic sort of name-calling when they don't get their way, and how many of those names came from the Reagan Era that have now lost all of their venomous meaning or are so over-the-top that they can't even be taken a joke as much as an old joke.

The Republican Base is fighting a War on Reality. They're not governing, they're slowly finding out that the world they were told about does not exist, and they're not in a rush to find out and change their ways. They're just going to go around wasting everybody's time while rocking the faux outrage until, one day, the dumbasses figure out they've been conned. And they're not adverse to wasting money in the long run to help with their insane faith-based reasoning that, so far, has shown how stupid they really are.


I dunno . . . I agree that the GOP is at odds with reality and has nothing to offer except catch phrases and boogeymen, etc., but I would take issue with your implication that it is losing relevance and coming slowly unravelled. We were all saying back in 2008 exactly what you just said, after GWB had ruined the GOP's credibility and the Dems seemed to have found a strong leader in Obama. Then, much to our surprise, the states and the House went as red as they could in 2010, largely due to the energy injected into the GOP by that paragon of idiocy, the Tea Party.

Right now, with all of this history behind us, I'm prepared to say that there is no level of stupidity or evil that Americans cannot be convinced to vote for. They really are that dumb and malleable, so I'm not counting on the "death" of the GOP happening any time soon.
 
2012-07-01 03:29:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: Do you think that I should be happy with paying for a welfare queen to live in a house on my dime for generation after generation? Happy with her saying "if you don't keep sending me my check I'll get up off my couch where I'm watching my flat screen TV, get in my car with brand new rims, and drive over to your house and rob you so that I don't have to work?"


Don't abridge the list. You forgot the x-box, iPad, and hot tub.

And don't forget the refrigerators.
 
2012-07-01 03:32:24 PM  
The idea of the welfare queen being the norm rather than the exception is ridiculous. She may have a giant SUV (that she got from some scheister used car dealership with a "no credit, no problem" financing scheme) with giant rims (which also probably came with the vehicle) and an iPhone (AT&T are practically giving them away these days) and use food stamps but that doesn't mean she's just happily sitting on her ass with no job at all whatsoever. At the end of the day she isn't necessarily a horrible person who enjoys leeching off of the holier-than-thou tax payer. She's a woman with three kids and a sick grandpappy with a car she can't really make the payments for an will end up losing, and a phone she's constantly having to have turned back on.

People who don't know what to do with what little money they have are the problem, not people who want to do nothing and get paid for it. Yeah, they've got the latter in every society, but they're the exception. Not the norm.
 
2012-07-01 03:33:10 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Silly Jesus: Do you think that I should be happy with paying for a welfare queen to live in a house on my dime for generation after generation? Happy with her saying "if you don't keep sending me my check I'll get up off my couch where I'm watching my flat screen TV, get in my car with brand new rims, and drive over to your house and rob you so that I don't have to work?"

Don't abridge the list. You forgot the x-box, iPad, and hot tub.

And don't forget the refrigerators.


And the mocrowaves.
 
2012-07-01 04:08:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Yeah! I was unfairly obliged to help fund a morally reprehensible war in Iraq that killed thousands of innocent people. This war was imposed on me against my wishes, thus violating my rights. I was not given the opportunity to decide how each dollar I paid in taxes was allocated. I was shackled to the tyrannical war machine! This is slave labor!


you can include bank bailouts and corporate subsidies along with that.

i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-01 04:11:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?


isn't that what Wall st or the oil companies or the military industrial complex do?
 
2012-07-01 04:11:45 PM  
I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.
 
2012-07-01 04:14:01 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.


maybe the Red states should just secede since they don't want to participate anymore? After all they're the ones sucking up all the Federal money for their hoverounds.
 
2012-07-01 04:20:29 PM  

Hobodeluxe: isn't that what Wall st or the oil companies or the military industrial complex do?


It's pretty similar to the GOP's "Give us everything or we will burn your country down," too.
 
2012-07-01 04:38:33 PM  
So much for that "small government" dipsh*t states like Tennessee are always clamoring for.
 
2012-07-01 05:01:21 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.


Yes, and guess which party they vote for? Rhymes with Teapuglichan.
 
2012-07-01 05:01:25 PM  

Elmo Jones: Silly Jesus: I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

[i3.kym-cdn.com

image 640x480]


And he claimed to be a former gay porn star from Europe too.

Whatever happened to that?
 
2012-07-01 05:16:17 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Noam Chimpsky: I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.

maybe the Red states should just secede since they don't want to participate anymore? After all they're the ones sucking up all the Federal money for their hoverounds.


If they're gonna secede, it would be a damn good idea to purge your welfare druggies first.
 
2012-07-01 05:17:53 PM  
The taxpayers should be buying the drugs for the welfare queens as well. That way they never have to leave the house we bought for them and use the Escalade we provided them with. There used to be a thing called "shame" in this country where people did not want to be on welfare for any length of time--just long enough to "get over the hump" so to speak. Now, people are proud to be generational leeches on society. And there's no way Democrats will do anything to fix that because that would mean they would be out of a job. Amazing how people, especially blacks, worship the very people that are enslaving them.
 
2012-07-01 05:19:17 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Hobodeluxe: Noam Chimpsky: I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.

maybe the Red states should just secede since they don't want to participate anymore? After all they're the ones sucking up all the Federal money for their hoverounds.

If they're gonna secede, it would be a damn good idea to purge your welfare druggies first.


BS. If you're gonna secede, wait until after so you can just gun them all down with no protections, dummy.
 
2012-07-01 05:38:21 PM  

Is_What_It_Is: The taxpayers should be buying the drugs for the welfare queens as well. That way they never have to leave the house we bought for them and use the Escalade we provided them with. There used to be a thing called "shame" in this country where people did not want to be on welfare for any length of time--just long enough to "get over the hump" so to speak. Now, people are proud to be generational leeches on society. And there's no way Democrats will do anything to fix that because that would mean they would be out of a job. Amazing how people, especially blacks, worship the very people that are enslaving them.


1/10 and I'm being generous
 
2012-07-01 05:40:08 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Noam Chimpsky: I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.

maybe the Red states should just secede since they don't want to participate anymore? After all they're the ones sucking up all the Federal money for their hoverounds.


No kidding. I should have gotten into the hoveround business. We just can't afford to give every old person a hoveround. It's getting out of hand. People with the use of their hands get wheelchairs. Deal with it.
 
2012-07-01 05:40:17 PM  

Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?


I don't think there's enough personal responsibility in America and I think there should be more.
 
2012-07-01 05:43:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: I don't think there's enough personal responsibility in America and I think there should be more.


Simple rule of business operations -- responsibility requires authority.
 
2012-07-01 05:45:02 PM  

coeyagi: Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?

Supply Side Jesus said there is infinite wealth, they just need to get off their asses and create jobs themselves.


Fruits and vegetables don't pick themselves. People don't want the jobs. The jobs are there. The farmers are having to get prison labor and let the rest of the crops rot in the fields...these are the jobs that became available after the anti-illegal alien legislation of recent. Dey took ar jorbs, my ass. The lazy bastards won't do them now that they are there.

And it's not just farm related jobs...there are still jobs out there. When I was seeking a second job a few months back (not out of day to day necessity, but to pay for a honeymoon without accruing debt) I applied to 15 openings in one week...all within 30 miles of my home. There are jobs out there if you aren't lazy and willing to look.
 
2012-07-01 05:46:37 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Silly Jesus: Do you think that I should be happy with paying for a welfare queen to live in a house on my dime for generation after generation? Happy with her saying "if you don't keep sending me my check I'll get up off my couch where I'm watching my flat screen TV, get in my car with brand new rims, and drive over to your house and rob you so that I don't have to work?"

Don't abridge the list. You forgot the x-box, iPad, and hot tub.

And don't forget the refrigerators.


4 x-boxes, according to an item in the police blotter a few weeks back...
 
2012-07-01 05:51:27 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Silly Jesus: So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

isn't that what Wall st or the oil companies or the military industrial complex do?


Not quite. I mean you could work your way to that conclusion eventually, I assume, but I'm not aware of Wall St., or an oil company, or the military industrial complex assaulting any of my acquaintances...I am, however, aware of an acquaintance being assaulted by a "less-fortunate" government housing resident who really, really, really needed an X-box.
 
2012-07-01 05:51:35 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Simple rule of business operations -- responsibility requires authority.


Stupid Jesus is an election-year troll alt that's never posted anything aside from right-wing shillery. You'd have better luck debating quantum physics with a dead raccoon.

/Is "Shillery" a word?
//It is now.
 
2012-07-01 05:53:12 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Silly Jesus: I don't think there's enough personal responsibility in America and I think there should be more.

Simple rule of business operations -- responsibility requires authority.


Isn't being responsible sort of doing what you're supposed to without someone (authority) looking over your shoulder?
 
2012-07-01 05:57:45 PM  
"If somebody next door to you loses their check and food stamps, what do you think they're going to do?" asked Brown, who lives in a housing project with her four children. "They still got to eat, feed their kids. You're going to have a lot more crime."

How very Last Century. Everyone knows that parents these days have no responsibility to feed their kids. That's what school lunch (and breakfast and dinner and weekends) is for.
 
2012-07-01 05:58:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: Isn't being responsible sort of doing what you're supposed to without someone (authority) looking over your shoulder?


If you're a fourth-grader with an undeveloped vocabulary, yes.
 
2012-07-01 06:15:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."


no, it doesn't. And since it doesn't, the rest of your argument is nonsense.
 
2012-07-01 06:34:12 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Lenny_da_Hog: Simple rule of business operations -- responsibility requires authority.

Stupid Jesus is an election-year troll alt that's never posted anything aside from right-wing shillery. You'd have better luck debating quantum physics with a dead raccoon.

/Is "Shillery" a word?
//It is now.


cl.jroo.me
 
2012-07-01 07:00:22 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Noam Chimpsky: Hobodeluxe: Noam Chimpsky: I don't see the problem. Welfare druggies can just move to Democrat states and get more welfare benefits and use drugs all they want. They really don't belong in Republican states.

maybe the Red states should just secede since they don't want to participate anymore? After all they're the ones sucking up all the Federal money for their hoverounds.

If they're gonna secede, it would be a damn good idea to purge your welfare druggies first.

BS. If you're gonna secede, wait until after so you can just gun them all down with no protections, dummy.


Democrat states purge their entrepeneurs by forcing them to move to friendlier states rather than shooting them, so Republican states should return the same courtesy by allowing the welfare druggies to migrate to the Democrat states where they are appreciated. No need for any shooting.
 
2012-07-01 08:04:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: coeyagi: Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?

Supply Side Jesus said there is infinite wealth, they just need to get off their asses and create jobs themselves.

Fruits and vegetables don't pick themselves. People don't want the jobs. The jobs are there. The farmers are having to get prison labor and let the rest of the crops rot in the fields...these are the jobs that became available after the anti-illegal alien legislation of recent. Dey took ar jorbs, my ass. The lazy bastards won't do them now that they are there.

And it's not just farm related jobs...there are still jobs out there. When I was seeking a second job a few months back (not out of day to day necessity, but to pay f ...


Oh Silly dumbass you, even if they have jobs they are still vilified by the right because they still make too little to pay federal income taxes. Remember the 47% bullshiat?

HEY GOP DUMBASSES! If that's what you care about, then create jobs or increases wages so people can afford to pay taxes you dipshiats!
 
2012-07-01 08:06:55 PM  
My position: Be excellent to each other.

GOP position: fark everyone who isn't rich AND supporting the Republican party.
 
2012-07-01 08:18:58 PM  

coeyagi: Silly Jesus: coeyagi: Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?

Supply Side Jesus said there is infinite wealth, they just need to get off their asses and create jobs themselves.

Fruits and vegetables don't pick themselves. People don't want the jobs. The jobs are there. The farmers are having to get prison labor and let the rest of the crops rot in the fields...these are the jobs that became available after the anti-illegal alien legislation of recent. Dey took ar jorbs, my ass. The lazy bastards won't do them now that they are there.

And it's not just farm related jobs...there are still jobs out there. When I was seeking a second job a few months back (not out of day to day necessity, ...


So artificially pay people more than they are worth so that you can maybe recover some of that money through their payment of taxes? Brilliant!
 
2012-07-01 08:34:27 PM  
In the case of the sales tax on groceries, the measure that's included in the governor's spending plan will reduce the tax from 5.5 percent to 5.25 percent -

Reducing the tax by .25%, that's 25 cents saved on a $100 dollar grocery bill. Why farking bother.
 
2012-07-01 08:45:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."


Do you want to live in a society or a dog eat dog economy?
 
2012-07-01 08:46:41 PM  

Shaggy_C: DarwiOdrade: Why? So you can complain about your tax dollars going to pay for their weight-training and cable TV?

Don't be ridiculous. The threat of punishment is supposed to encourage positive behavior. You can't get a well-paying job if you can't pass a drug test.


Thus ensuring perpetual dependency. Brilliant.
 
2012-07-01 08:56:11 PM  

kg2095: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

Do you want to live in a society or a dog eat dog economy?


They are mutually exclusive?
 
2012-07-01 09:03:56 PM  

microman: druggies, and thieves, they will all vote for Obama

so who cares? its the Democrat way of life.


Druggies and thieves? You mean like Rush Limbaugh and the Enron executives?
 
2012-07-01 09:06:58 PM  
Republicans are embarrassing to the human species
 
2012-07-01 09:07:56 PM  

IlGreven: MBK: cameroncrazy1984: Why not? Cash assistance isn't even a very large part of the federal budget, and it helps a lot of people. Abuse of the system is actually very low. I'm having a hard time figuring out why we shouldn't have it.

Because he read Atlas Shrugged or some other Ayn Rand novel and now he thinks poor people need to be rounded up and killed so that the rich can survive, or some bullshiat like that.

If he actually read any Ayn Rand and thinks that, then he didn't understand her at all.


I would no sooner read anything written by Ayn Rand than I would read Mein Kampf or listen to Rush Limbaugh.
 
2012-07-01 09:10:32 PM  

X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

In florida, they spent something like $21 million to catch a few thousand in fraud. Oh and the money went to a friend of the governor.

That makes sense to you?

The problem is with the program existing at all.

No, it doesn't make sense to spend that amount of money to catch that few people, but the program shouldn't be in place to start with. Problem solved.

In order to come to this conclusion of yours, one must first either ignore the history behind programs such as these altogether, or, barring that, take significant measures to rewrite the historical narrative behind the development of these programs.

You, sir, whether by accident of design, are a conduit for lies.

The economists of the likes of the Hoover Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, The Reason Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute are not arriving at their opinions which you echo, trough empirical analysis of policy. They get their by first staking our a moral position and cherry picking analysis to FIT this moral position.

These professionals are not economists. They may be trained in economics, but first and foremost, they are moralists.

And as such, no longer qualify as scientific analysts of economic policy and should be ignored at all cost.


Moralists makes them sound like good people. They are actually sociopaths with a right wing authoritarian axe to grind.
 
2012-07-01 09:11:53 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: andersoncouncil42: It's immoral and doesn't save money. What's the upside again?

It punishes poor people. Poor people who might be Democrats, or worse, might be brown.


These days poor people are more likely to be die-hard Republicans.
 
2012-07-01 09:25:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: coeyagi: Silly Jesus: coeyagi: Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?

Supply Side Jesus said there is infinite wealth, they just need to get off their asses and create jobs themselves.

Fruits and vegetables don't pick themselves. People don't want the jobs. The jobs are there. The farmers are having to get prison labor and let the rest of the crops rot in the fields...these are the jobs that became available after the anti-illegal alien legislation of recent. Dey took ar jorbs, my ass. The lazy bastards won't do them now that they are there.

And it's not just farm related jobs...there are still jobs out there. When I was seeking a second job a few months back (not out of day to day n ...


Either that or stop complaining about them not paying federal income taxes. Seriously, you can't have it both ways.
 
2012-07-01 09:29:14 PM  
C'mon....stop feeding the troll. he's either sincere and incredibly ignorant or he's just baiting you.

Either way...thank god he's in the extreme minority.
 
2012-07-01 09:32:06 PM  

X-boxershorts: C'mon....stop feeding the troll. he's either sincere and incredibly ignorant or he's just baiting you.

Either way...thank god he's in the extreme minority.


I am done with him. He lives in the impenetrable GOP bubble. They can't get Obama's Magic Time Machine to return to the 1950s so they hate him and everything he does.
 
2012-07-01 10:20:24 PM  

coeyagi: Silly Jesus: coeyagi: Silly Jesus: coeyagi: Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

We have a concept in the US called the "social contract". The quid pro quo of this contract reads roughly that for value received of not starving to death in the streets and generally having a slightly better than subsistence level of existing, the poor covenant not to rise up en masse to burn, loot and murder the wealthy.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia and live in a fortress.

So I should be happy with "give me money or I will burn your house down"?

Also, they aren't really sticking to their end of the contract.

I like this contract much better... "If I don't allow you to extort money from me, and you try to burn my house down, I'll enact the castle doctrine and solve the problem for you."

So in other words, you don't think there are enough homeless and starving people in America and you think there should be more?

Supply Side Jesus said there is infinite wealth, they just need to get off their asses and create jobs themselves.

Fruits and vegetables don't pick themselves. People don't want the jobs. The jobs are there. The farmers are having to get prison labor and let the rest of the crops rot in the fields...these are the jobs that became available after the anti-illegal alien legislation of recent. Dey took ar jorbs, my ass. The lazy bastards won't do them now that they are there.

And it's not just farm related jobs...there are still jobs out there. When I was seeking a second job a few months back (not out of ...


You should get what you pay for. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't reap the rewards.
 
2012-07-01 10:22:09 PM  

coeyagi: X-boxershorts: C'mon....stop feeding the troll. he's either sincere and incredibly ignorant or he's just baiting you.

Either way...thank god he's in the extreme minority.

I am done with him. He lives in the impenetrable GOP bubble. They can't get Obama's Magic Time Machine to return to the 1950s so they hate him and everything he does.


Libtards are 100% of the time absolutely correct about everything and anyone that disagrees with them must be a troll / stupid / living in a bubble. That's a mighty intelligent viewpoint there, Lou.
 
2012-07-01 10:28:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: coeyagi: X-boxershorts: C'mon....stop feeding the troll. he's either sincere and incredibly ignorant or he's just baiting you.

Either way...thank god he's in the extreme minority.

I am done with him. He lives in the impenetrable GOP bubble. They can't get Obama's Magic Time Machine to return to the 1950s so they hate him and everything he does.

Libtards are 100% of the time absolutely correct about everything and anyone that disagrees with them must be a troll / stupid / living in a bubble. That's a mighty intelligent viewpoint there, Lou.


I doubt Farkers are the first people to ever call you an idiot.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report