Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8400 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get that from my post? Geeze.
You said that poverty is caused by the government. Remember? Well, we didn't have much of a welfare system in this country before 1965. If you are right that poverty is because of government, it would follow there was no poverty before the government became involved. Geeze.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8401 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, wrong as usual. When income taxes were first introduced, only people that made over $800.00 per year were taxed, and they were all taxed at the same rate. In comparison,$800.00 per year was about $21,000 today.$21,000 today is lower-income.
Which would be a progressive system. Right? Higher income people paid more tax than lower income people.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8402 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true, some people do move up or down to a different class. But that's usually the exception and not the rule. Leftists find it cruel when I say that if in charge, the first thing I would do is create a law that if you need public assistance, you have to have your tubes tied first.
A working person can only have as many children as their income will allow, while a non-working person can have as many children as they want. The more children, the more food stamps, the larger HUD home, the more welfare. So government actually promotes poverty. Now if my idea were implemented, we would really be doing something about solving poverty not just talking the talk.
Just a tad bit unconstitutional there. For a guy who pretends to honor the constitution, you sure promote violating it.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8403 Sep 9, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
I have it saved on an e drive
you lie with every post
Why don't you share the threat with the rest of us, big mouth? You are the only one who saw it. You are getting more unstable by the day.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#8404 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true, some people do move up or down to a different class. But that's usually the exception and not the rule. Leftists find it cruel when I say that if in charge, the first thing I would do is create a law that if you need public assistance, you have to have your tubes tied first.
A working person can only have as many children as their income will allow, while a non-working person can have as many children as they want. The more children, the more food stamps, the larger HUD home, the more welfare. So government actually promotes poverty. Now if my idea were implemented, we would really be doing something about solving poverty not just talking the talk.
I don't consider myself a "leftist" although I am certain that you disagree.

I always love it when folks who hold opinions such as the one you've posted here place the entirety of the blame for unwanted or unsupportable children solely upon the female parent, and absolutely none upon the male parent. There's always, always, always (did I say always?) a cry for forced sterilization, but only through forced tubal ligations...but never a cry for forced vasectomies. End result of such ridiculous proposals: baby momma has no more kids, and baby poppa keep a right on breedin.

Now, I have not even mentioned the truly "conservative" aspect of my argument. Here it is. What you propose violates the US Constitution, and likely the Constitutions of every single state in the Union. The litigation over such a proposal would swiftly send it to the wastebaskets in every AG's office in the country.

Beyond all of that, the monetary benefits Congress provides are intended to provide food, shelter, and clothing to those who cannot fend for themselves. Ever read Maslow?

Your opinion on this issue is not just a prime example of poorly reasoned opinion, it's crass, cruel, and directed at the people least responsible for the country's economic problems: children.

Why not fully research who really is responsible for the current economic crisis, and direct your ire in a manner more likely to address it instead?

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglit...

woof
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8405 Sep 9, 2012
Common sense wrote:
Hey xxxrayted, do you really believe it is acceptable and MORAL for wealthy Americans to pay less taxes than the middle class? Unless your folks leave the country when we fall on our face who do you think the hungry masses are going to come for?
who can afford ammo and snipers?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8406 Sep 9, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you share the threat with the rest of us, big mouth? You are the only one who saw it. You are getting more unstable by the day.
why don't you quit lying?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8407 Sep 9, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you share the threat with the rest of us, big mouth? You are the only one who saw it. You are getting more unstable by the day.
PS: there were 5 replys to the post that were not by me.

so again you lie when you say nobody saw it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8408 Sep 9, 2012
if you really want see something interesting, here is the Republican GOP Nominee in 1940 Wendell Willkie admitting he was a Liberal before FDR, A True or Classical Liberal that is and that FDR was the one who adopted & distorted the word Liberal and Willkie Campaigned on it. A True or Classical Liberal was someone who believed in individual liberties and limited government under the rule of law and stresses economic freedom.

Wendell Willkie was the Republican nominee for President in 1940

&fe ature=related

Classical liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_libera...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#8409 Sep 9, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that poverty is caused by the government. Remember? Well, we didn't have much of a welfare system in this country before 1965. If you are right that poverty is because of government, it would follow there was no poverty before the government became involved. Geeze.
Your comprehension skills are pretty dull, aren't they?

I didn't say government "caused" people to be poor, I said they sponsor it. If I sued you for everything you owned, that would be causing you to be poor. Promoting somebody to be poor is enticing them.

I don't know where you came up with this 1965 stuff. Welfare has been around in this country since the early 40's. Yes, Democrats have been expanding welfare throughout time, but it didn't start in 1965.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#8410 Sep 9, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't consider myself a "leftist" although I am certain that you disagree.
I always love it when folks who hold opinions such as the one you've posted here place the entirety of the blame for unwanted or unsupportable children solely upon the female parent, and absolutely none upon the male parent. There's always, always, always (did I say always?) a cry for forced sterilization, but only through forced tubal ligations...but never a cry for forced vasectomies. End result of such ridiculous proposals: baby momma has no more kids, and baby poppa keep a right on breedin.
Now, I have not even mentioned the truly "conservative" aspect of my argument. Here it is. What you propose violates the US Constitution, and likely the Constitutions of every single state in the Union. The litigation over such a proposal would swiftly send it to the wastebaskets in every AG's office in the country.
Beyond all of that, the monetary benefits Congress provides are intended to provide food, shelter, and clothing to those who cannot fend for themselves. Ever read Maslow?
Your opinion on this issue is not just a prime example of poorly reasoned opinion, it's crass, cruel, and directed at the people least responsible for the country's economic problems: children.
Why not fully research who really is responsible for the current economic crisis, and direct your ire in a manner more likely to address it instead?
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglit...
woof
Oh please with your 400 page answers. I thought we went through this already.

There is nothing unconstitutional about people getting fixed if they want public assistance because public assistance is an option. If you don't want public assistance, get a job. You don't have to be on public assistance.

Yes, men can get tied up too, but they are usually not the ones who are collecting welfare to support their kids--mothers are. So it would be difficult to have men comply with such a procedure. If they refuse, then what can you do? You can't force them. The only way you can have men offer to get fixed is if they are the ones applying for assistance for themselves and their family. In that case, I'm all for it.

The solution to poverty is simple. But like with any situation where liberals are involved, they make even the simplest solutions complex. If we are ever to solve the major problems our country faces, we have to get rid of liberals first.
Save Yourself

Canton, OH

#8411 Sep 9, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you share the threat with the rest of us, big mouth? You are the only one who saw it. You are getting more unstable by the day.
There was never a threat made. He called me a coward Liberal for being smart enough not to post my personal information on here. I then told him that if he is so brave, would he mind if I posted his real name. Followed by him squirming and groveling. No threat there. However, him saying he is going to illegally ping my location and send people I wouldn't like very much, to my home is the definition of a threat. So just like Reality being stupid enough to post his own personal information on here, he is also stupid enough to make threats in a public forum, no matter how nutered the threats may be. Funny how he said he has it saved on an e-drive, as opposed to just posting the link to what he is calling a threat. That would expose him as the bullshit liar...ooops I meant outstanding Christian Eagle Scout that he is.

Just another hand me down success story, pretending like he is the reason he grew up rich. Typical Tea Bagging ignorance and typical imagined Christian persecution all warpped up in a tin foil hat.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#8412 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please with your 400 page answers. I thought we went through this already.
There is nothing unconstitutional about people getting fixed if they want public assistance because public assistance is an option. If you don't want public assistance, get a job. You don't have to be on public assistance.
Yes, men can get tied up too, but they are usually not the ones who are collecting welfare to support their kids--mothers are. So it would be difficult to have men comply with such a procedure. If they refuse, then what can you do? You can't force them. The only way you can have men offer to get fixed is if they are the ones applying for assistance for themselves and their family. In that case, I'm all for it.
The solution to poverty is simple. But like with any situation where liberals are involved, they make even the simplest solutions complex. If we are ever to solve the major problems our country faces, we have to get rid of liberals first.
As usual, taking 5 minutes to educate yourself is too taxing and inconvenient for you.

The thirty seconds it would take to look at where government funds actually come from and go is simply more than your busy schedule would permit.

You don't like poor children do you? You should try talking to them sometime.

woof
Save Yourself

Canton, OH

#8413 Sep 9, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: there were 5 replys to the post that were not by me.
so again you lie when you say nobody saw it.
Post the link to the exact page.
Save Yourself

Canton, OH

#8414 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comprehension skills are pretty dull, aren't they?
I didn't say government "caused" people to be poor, I said they sponsor it. If I sued you for everything you owned, that would be causing you to be poor. Promoting somebody to be poor is enticing them.
I don't know where you came up with this 1965 stuff. Welfare has been around in this country since the early 40's. Yes, Democrats have been expanding welfare throughout time, but it didn't start in 1965.
My Grandmother get's a pension for working at Sugerdale years ago. Ask around and let me know how many pensions you see being handed out these days. Again, people used to buy whole companies for shiny trinkets. What's that got to do with today's issues, other than you guys seem to think that American workers are on some kind of "free ride". Now fight to shut down the unions.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8415 Sep 9, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
why don't you quit lying?
Lying? Show us the post, big mouth. You are all talk and no substance.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8416 Sep 9, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: there 5 replys to the post that were not by me.
so again you lie when you say nobody saw it.
There was a post, but there was no threat in it. Come on. Back up that bulldog mouth of yours.
Save Yourself

Canton, OH

#8417 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please with your 400 page answers. I thought we went through this already.
There is nothing unconstitutional about people getting fixed if they want public assistance because public assistance is an option. If you don't want public assistance, get a job. You don't have to be on public assistance.
Yes, men can get tied up too, but they are usually not the ones who are collecting welfare to support their kids--mothers are. So it would be difficult to have men comply with such a procedure. If they refuse, then what can you do? You can't force them. The only way you can have men offer to get fixed is if they are the ones applying for assistance for themselves and their family. In that case, I'm all for it.
The solution to poverty is simple. But like with any situation where liberals are involved, they make even the simplest solutions complex. If we are ever to solve the major problems our country faces, we have to get rid of liberals first.
Oh, now we get it. You want to solve America's poverty problems Hitler style.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8418 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comprehension skills are pretty dull, aren't they?
I didn't say government "caused" people to be poor, I said they sponsor it.
In response to why there is homelessness and hunger you said,
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
In our country, it's because of the government.
You said it. Stand by it.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#8419 Sep 9, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please with your 400 page answers. I thought we went through this already.
There is nothing unconstitutional about people getting fixed if they want public assistance because public assistance is an option. If you don't want public assistance, get a job. You don't have to be on public assistance.
Yes, men can get tied up too, but they are usually not the ones who are collecting welfare to support their kids--mothers are. So it would be difficult to have men comply with such a procedure. If they refuse, then what can you do? You can't force them. The only way you can have men offer to get fixed is if they are the ones applying for assistance for themselves and their family. In that case, I'm all for it.
The solution to poverty is simple. But like with any situation where liberals are involved, they make even the simplest solutions complex. If we are ever to solve the major problems our country faces, we have to get rid of liberals first.
Not a big fan of the 14th amendment, are you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Georgetown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Creepy animal 12 hr Anonymous 4
News Unexplained boom heard in Brown and neighboring... (Mar '10) 13 hr Iknowso 69
Kasich offers state help in Cincinnati Shootings 19 hr The Investigator 1
New Sheriff Sat Dept of Accounting 4
Micayla Brown at Wendy's (Nov '15) Mar 24 Bookface 20
Evidence Evaluation Breakthrough In The Zachary... Mar 23 Prison is imminent 36
STFU Gusweiler (Jun '16) Mar 23 Hung over 23

Georgetown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Georgetown Mortgages