[QUOTE=Warfish;4003171]Where is my "choice"? The State takes whatever it wishes, to pay for whetever it wishes, I have no "choice" whatsoever. In the hands of an "Big Powerful Govt." group of leaders, what they take is alot and what they spend it on is not (IMO) all approprioate.
Save the colorful rhetoric. "Draconian".:rolleyes:
Existing Federal and State Programs handle distribution just fine. Again, the issue is consolidation and efficiency, not funding.
Funny, aren't you the one whining about puttng words into other poeples mouths just a few days ago? At no time have I suppoerted "no taxes" or "nobody should get anything". Never.
More colorful emotion-based rhetoric, just like calling someone a racist/homophone/bigot, the only intention of a line like this is to paint yoru political opposite as some cold-hearted evil, and yourself as some big-hearted saint.
It's not worth responding to, tbh. Being against some aspects of the Social Welfare/Entitlement State does not, in fact, make one "cold". Being a huge supporter of a dominant, all-powerful, confiscatory Social Welfare State does not make one big-hearted or "warm" either.
Stick to policy, if you please.
On the contrary, I fully support taxation as a means of funding the vital responsabilities of our Federal Govt. as laid out in the Constitution. However, I do not support the use of the tax code as a political weapon, or as a tool for social engineering attempts, or any other non-funding-of-vitals way it's used today. I also do not support inherantly inequal treatment of individuals based purely upon their success, success which (despite liberal claims) comes in the majority from effort and motivation, not "on the backs of the poor" as is so often claimed. I also do not support inefficent massive Govt. (IRS) for what could be vastly cheaper to operate and far more efficent to do, i.e. Flat/Fair Tax. I'm even open on the percentages, if the percentage can be backed by vital constituional need/appropriateness.
What LiL doesn;t like, and why he attacks so, is because I do not support a Euro-Style, Cover-um-all Social welfare State as he seems to. where any "need" is cobered, work is optional, and taxes are in the 50%+ area. All one needs to see is his deep admiration for teh Socialist/Welfare States of Denmark/Norway to see the kind of system he prefers.[/QUOTE]
All you really have to do is answer my question, which you failed to do. You've got x amount of dollars in the federal budget. What are your priorities for distribution of that money? And you keep talking about how redundant social welfare programs are, so show us how they are redundant. Your local and state governments would be happy to learn how they are not being efficient by duplicating federal programs...
P.S. do you see any difference between unemployment insurance and public assistance? Or are they are the same?
What in your mind is a "vital constitutional need?"
Devil is in the details, as always, not global ranting with no specifics.
[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4003357]Someone has lost their marbles.[/QUOTE]
No, someone has lost their patience for internet troll posters who refuse to debate honestly and with any form of itegrity.
If LiL wants to play forum Troll, he can sod off along with CR. We have plenty of lol one liner, never-debates, never answers, trolls here as it is. I frankly expected alot better out of LiL, whose not been that way in the past, but if he wants to be yet another worthless JI Poliforum troll, he can absolutely **** off.
[QUOTE=Warfish;4003366]No, someone has lost their patience for internet troll posters who refuse to debate honestly and with any form of itegrity.
If LiL wants to play forum Troll, he can sod off along with CR. We have plenty of lol one liner, never-debates, never answers, trolls here as it is. I frankly expected alot better out of LiL, whose not been that way in the past, but if he wants to be yet another worthless JI Poliforum troll, he can absolutely **** off.[/QUOTE]
Come on now, this is pretty silly. I have done a better job of actually attempting to answer your questions than virtually anybody else on this forum. I even gave you an exact percentage of my outrage at the killings in Afghanistan and vs. my annoyance with Terry Jones. But you didn't see the emptiness of your orginal demand, which is what your questions tend to be. I think sometimes you don't like my answers, so you recast them as fluff and not answering, or being evasive. Now you made some statement right here in this thread that were unsubstantiated but were used to supposedly support your hardline position. I merely asked you to cite some actual details to support your statement. Your response was to get yourself into high dudgeon and start name calling. So we share a mutual goal... we both expect more out of each other apparently. Right now the Dept. of Agriculture funds a "Weed and Seed" program with our tax dollars. Is that a better use of federal funds than a program to provide crisis support to people losing their homes? If you're the senator from Kansas, you'd say "yes." If you're from West Virginia, you might say "no." There are choices.
And by the way, I think your Civil War Museum idea sucks. There are too many people in the South who don't even know the Civil War is over, which I know all to well from years on a Civil War Forum. It would be a magnet for all the crazies who currently spend their time dressing up in old Union and Confederate uniforms and pretending their fighting the Battle of Chancellorsville, or some such past-time...