hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
That's why I want to take away that power. Nothing would get done unless it's really needed. And I'm okay with that.
But where would we go to shoot our guns?
That's why I want to take away that power. Nothing would get done unless it's really needed. And I'm okay with that.
But where would we go to shoot our guns?
You want the government to build you a gun range, YOU pay for it.
ETA: I'd probably volunteer to pay that tax.
Why, when I can deflect the cost amongst everyone and not just myself?
Well, that's exactly what I'd like to stop. I know it would never happen. But I think it would solve a lot of problems, though, admittedly, not without much loud butthurt.
Well, that's exactly what I'd like to stop. I know it would never happen. But I think it would solve a lot of problems, though, admittedly, not without much loud butthurt.
...so if you're lucky, $90 may go back out.
Just so everyone is clear, the Raiders are actually just a football team and won't really raid us. The Lions? Not real lions. Just football players. The Cowboys? Ok, well some of them may actually be cowboys, but they are just here to play football.
I can see how these things could be confused with events where people face real enemies or situations with real consequences.
Carry on.
I'm not sure what you're responding to. I'm kinda slow today. Can you spell it out?
He's trying to say that welfare to other nations isn't the same as welfare to corporations or lazy Americans.
I'd tend to agree with that. It's not the same.
But I also think that if the government had to beg the taxpayers to fund non-discretionary spending, it'd all be moot. I'd probably volunteer some tax money for helping our allies. I'd probably decline for Lucus Oil Stadium.
If the adage of "don't feed the bears" because they will forget how to fend for themselves applies to those living in the hood or trailer park, why wouldn't it apply to third world nations? How would a third world nation ever learn to defend and maintain their own liberty and safety if some benevolent third party is always there to bail them out?
What if that 3rd world nation's leaders pledged their life, liberty, and sacred honor?
I was telling my wife about this story this evening. She has a cousin that is a social worker and she's mentioned that many of her clients come driving nicer cars than hers and make more money than she does.
Everybody seems to "know" about someone who is living the high life on the dole. In general, the stories are exaggerated to justify one's biases. When I owned rental property, I encountered a number of people on various forms of assistance. None of them had it easy. Do people abuse the system? Of course, there will be people who abuse ANY system.
Every day, I'm grateful that I am mentally and physically able to support myself. I pay more in taxes than many people make in a year, and it doesn't bother me one bit. I think there's something in some book about not judging others, but we can't talk about that here. Shouldn't need to, since so many INGOers claim to be familiar with that book.
The existence of Social Security survivor benefits and various forms of gov't-funded aid allowed me to get a good education and become a more productive member of society than I would have without those programs.
If being on public assistance is such a gravy train, why doesn't everyone just quit working and enjoy it? You already know the answer. I wouldn't trade places with someone on welfare for anything. And for those who abuse the system - what goes around comes around.
This is another example of useful idiots being distracted and manipulated into thinking that the welfare parasites are the root of the problem. While people are arguing about welfare and demonizing those at the bottom of society, the top 1/2 of 1% are robbing us blind and laughing at us on the way to the bank.
Clearly the Iraqi soldiers we trained that laid their weapons down at the ISIS advancements did.