George Zimmerman slams 'baboon' Obama after Virginia shooting

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-01-2015, 09:54 PM)jason Wrote: He wouldn't have been following that kid if he wasn't the racist, *****, twit that he is....  (The ***** starts with P.... ends in Y)

so if you were the Neighborhood Watch guy and a strange kid was wandering around in the neighborhood where there's been some burglaries recently, you wouldn't keep an eye on him? Like it or not, just about everyone stereotypes in one way or another.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-01-2015, 08:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: All I was doing was pointing out that YOU admit that when a woman is raped you have no problem with ending the pregnancy.  You just want it to be a pill so you can pretend it isn't ending the pregnancy.

I have been a consistent supporter on these boards of the morning after pill being cheap and legal. And with that having abortion illegal.

There is no exception that you can't sort out within 72 hours. And even the ones who use abortion as birth control can use it.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-01-2015, 11:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: General welfare doesn't mean cradle to grave entitlements. 

Welfare had a different meaning until government cheese programs became a big thing a couple of decades ago. 

Please find me some quotes from any of the founding fathers advocating for big government social programs.  Good luck.

I have said this exact same thing.... If the founders wanted the government to take care of everyone's needs they would have set it up accordingly.

You either make it or you dont on your own merits. That's How this country was meant.

[Belsnickel]

(09-01-2015, 11:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: General welfare doesn't mean cradle to grave entitlements. 

Welfare had a different meaning until government cheese programs became a big thing a couple of decades ago. 

Please find me some quotes from any of the founding fathers advocating for big government social programs.  Good luck.

Again with the hyperbole, and the straw man. Show me where I mentioned social welfare? Taking care of our people includes everything from infrastructure to health care research. It includes immigration control (whether you want open borders or closed). It involves environmental concerns as well as economic. It even has to do with the DHS. All of these things involved taking care of our citizens, promoting the general welfare. Yet when you look at the discretionary budgets for them they do not add up to the total of the discretionary spending for one department, the DoD.

[GMDino]

(09-01-2015, 11:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: so if you were the Neighborhood Watch guy and a strange kid was wandering around in the neighborhood where there's been some burglaries recently, you wouldn't keep an eye on him? Like it or not, just about everyone stereotypes in one way or another.

Sure would.  And I'd call 911.  And I'd follow whatever protocol was set up for a neighborhood watch guy who isn't a trained officer.

I probably wouldn't follow him when they told me not to because I knew if I'd get jumped I'd lose the fight.  

And I probably wouldn't brag that I shot the last guy that was kicking my ass and got away with it either.   :snark:

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-02-2015, 07:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Again with the hyperbole, and the straw man. Show me where I mentioned social welfare? Taking care of our people includes everything from infrastructure to health care research. It includes immigration control (whether you want open borders or closed). It involves environmental concerns as well as economic. It even has to do with the DHS. All of these things involved taking care of our citizens, promoting the general welfare. Yet when you look at the discretionary budgets for them they do not add up to the total of the discretionary spending for one department, the DoD.

I don't see any hyperbole or strawman in my post.  Perhaps you can highlight what you believe I said that you're referring to as those things.

Infrastructure benefits the general welfare of the whole country.  Health care research and immigration control does as well. 

Welfare programs do not benefit the whole country.  They benefit a portion of the country and are a detriment to the rest that are stuck paying for these programs and actually have to make their own way. 

I said before that the defense budget needs to be scaled back, so I don't know why you're constantly bringing that into the discussion, unless it's to excuse BS spending because we spend more on defense.  Waste is waste.

Be lucky I'm not in charge.  I'd make poverty suck so bad that people wouldn't want to be in it.  I'd make it illegal to own a car while on government assistance.  I'd make it illegal to have cable TV while on government assistance.  Housing would be one-room efficiencies, and food stamps would go away in favor of food pantries that gave out the absolute bare necessities.  I'd also make it a law that anyone who gets pregnant while on government assistance will get their benefits cut. 

[GMDino]

(09-02-2015, 09:36 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I don't see any hyperbole or strawman in my post.  Perhaps you can highlight what you believe I said that you're referring to as those things.

Infrastructure benefits the general welfare of the whole country.  Health care research and immigration control does as well. 

Welfare programs do not benefit the whole country.  They benefit a portion of the country and are a detriment to the rest that are stuck paying for these programs and actually have to make their own way. 

I said before that the defense budget needs to be scaled back, so I don't know why you're constantly bringing that into the discussion, unless it's to excuse BS spending because we spend more on defense.  Waste is waste.

Be lucky I'm not in charge.  I'd make poverty suck so bad that people wouldn't want to be in it.  I'd make it illegal to own a car while on government assistance.  I'd make it illegal to have cable TV while on government assistance.  Housing would be one-room efficiencies, and food stamps would go away in favor of food pantries that gave out the absolute bare necessities.  I'd also make it a law that anyone who gets pregnant while on government assistance will get their benefits cut. 

Of course they do.

Are our streets filled with homeless people begging?

It helps keep crime rates lower.

Heck it helps business bottom lines by allowing them to pay low wages and not provide any kind of insurance or retirement.

That's why I laugh when I here a politician say the "poor" in America have it better than anywhere else in the world...so we have to take away those things that make it better.

You plan would ENSURE that the poor never got out of their place in society. But you probably think its a choice to be poor.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-02-2015, 01:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have said this exact same thing....   If the founders wanted the government to take care of everyone's needs they would have set it up accordingly.    

You either make it or you dont on your own merits.   That's How this country was meant.

Yeah, heaven forbid people have to face some personal responsibility and either face the consequences or reap the rewards from the decisions that you make in life. 

No, instead let's punish those who worked hard to get where they are in life to make it fair for those that make horrible decisions or don't put in the hard work and effort. 

"Everybody gets a trophy!"   :angry:

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-02-2015, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Of course they do.

Are our streets filled with homeless people begging?

It helps keep crime rates lower.

So let them beg.  At least that is putting in more effort than sitting on their collective azzes and letting government do it for them. 

As for crime rates, so it's bribery?  Good plan.  

[GMDino]

(09-02-2015, 09:45 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, heaven forbid people have to face some personal responsibility and either face the consequences or reap the rewards from the decisions that you make in life. 

No, instead let's punish those who worked hard to get where they are in life to make it fair for those that make horrible decisions or don't put in the hard work and effort. 

"Everybody gets a trophy!"   :angry:

Do you mean like when someone inherits their daddy's money and has to file for bankruptcy 3 or 4 times to save all he "worked for"?

Versus the guy who had to drop out of high school to support his mom or dad and can't get anywhere because he doesn't have the right "qualifications"?

Two extremes, I agree.  But the ones at the top seem to get a pass while the ones at the bottom didn't "work hard enough".

[Belsnickel]

(09-02-2015, 09:36 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I don't see any hyperbole or strawman in my post.  Perhaps you can highlight what you believe I said that you're referring to as those things.

Infrastructure benefits the general welfare of the whole country.  Health care research and immigration control does as well. 

Welfare programs do not benefit the whole country.  They benefit a portion of the country and are a detriment to the rest that are stuck paying for these programs and actually have to make their own way. 

I said before that the defense budget needs to be scaled back, so I don't know why you're constantly bringing that into the discussion, unless it's to excuse BS spending because we spend more on defense.  Waste is waste.

Be lucky I'm not in charge.  I'd make poverty suck so bad that people wouldn't want to be in it.  I'd make it illegal to own a car while on government assistance.  I'd make it illegal to have cable TV while on government assistance.  Housing would be one-room efficiencies, and food stamps would go away in favor of food pantries that gave out the absolute bare necessities.  I'd also make it a law that anyone who gets pregnant while on government assistance will get their benefits cut. 

You mean aside from the hyperbolic catch phrase of "cradle to grave entitlements" and the focus on social welfare programs when my post was about many other things? Yeah, it was entirely straw man, as was the rest of the post quoted here. You're responding to me arguing against something, but not my statements. That's straw man.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-02-2015, 01:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean aside from the hyperbolic catch phrase of "cradle to grave entitlements" and the focus on social welfare programs when my post was about many other things? Yeah, it was entirely straw man, as was the rest of the post quoted here. You're responding to me arguing against something, but not my statements. That's straw man.

You said something along the lines of "we spend way more money on the DoD and I think we should spend that money taking care of people inside our own borders". 

Fine.  Offer some specifics, and tell me what programs you support that you believe would be effective at both combating poverty AND not making people dependent on those programs for life. 

As of now, MOST entitlement programs offer zero incentive to get out of poverty, and in fact, offer people more incentive to stay in it.

It's asinine and counterproductive to what government SHOULD do.  No government should give people incentive to do less.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-02-2015, 03:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You said something along the lines of "we spend way more money on the DoD and I think we should spend that money taking care of people inside our own borders". 

Fine.  Offer some specifics, and tell me what programs you support that you believe would be effective at both combating poverty AND not making people dependent on those programs for life. 

As of now, MOST entitlement programs offer zero incentive to get out of poverty, and in fact, offer people more incentive to stay in it.

It's asinine and counterproductive to what government SHOULD do.  No government should give people incentive to do less.

I can think of one.  Greater re-investment into our infrastructure, thereby creating more jobs.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-02-2015, 03:10 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I can think of one.  Greater re-investment into our infrastructure, thereby creating more jobs.

I'm fine with that. 

We would have more money for infrastructure spending if both:

1) Government would stop robbing the highway fund to pay for pet projects like skate parks and bicycle paths

2) The gasoline tax was raised.  I'm normally not in favor of tax increases, but the tax has not been adjusted for a long time, and with cars being more economical now, it's created a shortfall.

I would however be opposed to an increase in the gasoline tax without legislation banning number 1 above.  

[GMDino]

(09-02-2015, 09:47 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So let them beg.  At least that is putting in more effort than sitting on their collective azzes and letting government do it for them. 

As for crime rates, so it's bribery?  Good plan.  

No.

And its not "bribery" it taking care of the less fortunate.  Are there people that that abuse that system?  Sure.  Just like there are rich people who cheat the tax system or get handouts for their business.

I'd rather help the 98% that are trying to help themselves too than worry about the 2% of the leeches.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-02-2015, 03:22 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm fine with that. 

We would have more money for infrastructure spending if both:

1) Government would stop robbing the highway fund to pay for pet projects like skate parks and bicycle paths

2) The gasoline tax was raised.  I'm normally not in favor of tax increases, but the tax has not been adjusted for a long time, and with cars being more economical now, it's created a shortfall.

I would however be opposed to an increase in the gasoline tax without legislation banning number 1 above.  

Meh...there is more wast within the DOD defense budget than any other government budget.  I figure I already pay that money in taxes.  Also we spend more than the next 10 countries combined in defense spending.  Say that out loud to yourself, it often has greater impact being heard rather than being read.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-02-2015, 03:24 PM)GMDino Wrote:

No.

And its not "bribery" it taking care of the less fortunate.  Are there people that that abuse that system?  Sure.  Just like there are rich people who cheat the tax system or get handouts for their business.

I'd rather help the 98% that are trying to help themselves too than worry about the 2% of the leeches.

You said "entitlements keep crime rates down".  What else could that possibly be if not bribery?

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-02-2015, 03:24 PM)GMDino Wrote:

No.

And its not "bribery" it taking care of the less fortunate.  Are there people that that abuse that system?  Sure.  Just like there are rich people who cheat the tax system or get handouts for their business.

I'd rather help the 98% that are trying to help themselves too than worry about the 2% of the leeches.

You gotta find a better hosting site man...

[Belsnickel]

(09-02-2015, 03:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You said something along the lines of "we spend way more money on the DoD and I think we should spend that money taking care of people inside our own borders". 

Fine.  Offer some specifics, and tell me what programs you support that you believe would be effective at both combating poverty AND not making people dependent on those programs for life. 

As of now, MOST entitlement programs offer zero incentive to get out of poverty, and in fact, offer people more incentive to stay in it.

It's asinine and counterproductive to what government SHOULD do.  No government should give people incentive to do less.

Actually, I said

(09-01-2015, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I consider the level to which our defense budget dwarfs all other budgets, let alone any individual one, that is about taking care of our own people within our borders, points to a gigantic disregard for human life. That's just me. I like to focus on the citizens first.

Which isn't advocating for more spending on social welfare programs, or as you keep referring to them, entitlements, at all. It is about where our government's priorities are. You've made this about social welfare programs in your straw man arguments. My last comment about focusing on the citizens first was about domestic spending in general.

You're just parroting GOP talking points and since they have no relevance to my position you've created an argument for me that I have no part of. You're asking me specifics about an argument I am not making.

[GMDino]

(09-02-2015, 03:30 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You gotta find a better hosting site man...

In general I don't upload to a hosting site but just hyperlink them using the url for the photo.

And its worked all the time on the new board until today.

But what is REALLY weird is that *I* can see the picture...even in your response where you quoted it and said you couldn't see it!