• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Georgia The People's Convoy

1644607917079.gif
 
No one said we should aspire. I said you won't find one without any type of social program and I'm right. I also outside of when i was child have never drawn unemployment, asked for government assistance or anything of the sort. . . i just dont have a holier than thou ****ing attitude about it.

Also never said that we should have unlimited spending by allowing SOME social programs. Or do you believe we should get rid of EVERY social program in this country again including farmers and solders. If your all or nothing then be all or nothing and dont ***** foot around.

I was against the spending we've recently done and dont believe we ever should have been giving out employment like we were. And if you dont want to lie to yourself then you will also admit republicans have been spending just as much as Dems and that **** needs to stop too.

Didnt vote for obama either times nor biden so good ****ing luck there. I see more and more moderate conservatives being pushed out because "they're not as conservative as me" and it just keeps making the group weaker and weaker. You want the dems to keep ****ing running everything, then just keep this **** up.

now im giving you one more response than i planned on because you are saying outright lies about what i am saying. but from now on any response will be "ok chicken little"
If you aren't holier than thou then why bring it up?
There are philosophical differences between the left and the right that go to the base of the way people think. Social programs are a way to attempt to equalize the outcomes for people (or minimize the disparity in outcomes). I have no interest in equalizing the outcomes (or minimizing any disparity) by force. You obviously do. Again, the antithesis of freedom. I believe citizens of this country should be insured equalized opportunity. Where people go from there, is up to them. Let them use that freedom and their efforts and decisions to lead them where they may. If you CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance, then that is a freedom you should be afforded. Why would you deny someone the benefit of enjoying the fruits and costs of their own decisions? That 'accountability' term gets thrown around a lot because it is what is sorely lacking today.
While I wish they didn't exist by mandate/force, many social programs that exist are insurance programs. If you've paid into social security your entire working life, I have zero problem with you getting (what will invariably amount to a fraction of what you should get back) some of that back. If you paid medicare insurance, you should be able to use it. Same with unemployment insurance. But if you are not paying into them, no, you should not be able benefit from the FORCED contribution of others. What possible justification is there that you should? Why is that concept so hard for leftists/statist to understand? Because again, fundamental philosophical differences in the way people think. Collectivists vs individualist. This country was not founded nor made the most successful on the planet by collectivists.
You've worked yourself up into a lather imagining things I haven't said or subscribe to. That's typical of those who make decisions based on emotion. Again, fundamental differences....
Yes, given the choice between all or nothing in the socialists programs you've laid out, I'll default to the Constitution.
 
Hey, let me know what you think of this.

Anyone with any sense can tell that Dr Faucci lies, does not seem to know what he is talking about because he changes his tune so often. It has been proven in congress that he is responsible for the gain of function of these diseases that they seem to be spreading while holding back vital meds that work.
 
Anyone with any sense can tell that Dr Faucci lies, does not seem to know what he is talking about because he changes his tune so often. It has been proven in congress that he is responsible for the gain of function of these diseases that they seem to be spreading while holding back vital meds that work.
Of course, but I just wanted to see what our friend thought.
 
Government shouldnt do anything to help anyone, quit assisting farmers, quit assisting education for soldiers, quit giving grants for new science, quit doing anything for anyone.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Definitely yes to "assisting" farmers.

These are all things the market should handle and does handle better when government isn't in the way.

Doesn't sound like you really want to improve the country, sounds like you want government to wave a magic wand and do it.
 
Yes, yes, and yes.

Definitely yes to "assisting" farmers.

These are all things the market should handle and does handle better when government isn't in the way.

Doesn't sound like you really want to improve the country, sounds like you want government to wave a magic wand and do it.
I farm and agree 100% way too many subsidies, grants, programs
 
Yes, yes, and yes.

Definitely yes to "assisting" farmers.

These are all things the market should handle and does handle better when government isn't in the way.

Doesn't sound like you really want to improve the country, sounds like you want government to wave a magic wand and do it.
We're all in this together.....
 
Any form of Govt is a necessary evil, and as evil it should be very limited in scope and reach.
Government, by definition, is the opposite of freedom. If you believe that not being free is 'evil' then you are absolutely correct. But there is an increasing population who deny history and believe they are trading freedom for safety. When in fact they are trading freedom for slavery. I wonder if slaves considered themselves 'safe'?
"But, but, but.... it's heartless to not force you to pay for others." The irony is completely lost on them.
 
Back
Top Bottom