I admire your balls, but not your brain, this guy runs you over like a train, you keep staggerin' back to your feet 'n' "Doh!"in, with your skull all busted and grey matter showin' you'd be better off finding someone slower, your mental equal, and not humiliating yourself with yet another sad sequel.
Just my opinion, but it's based on seeing you jump this poster twice and come away looking really slow witted each time. It's like watching a man armed with a banana fight a tiger. Messy, funny and sad.
You know my grandparents both use the Meals on Wheel's program and Social Security, which have allowed them to stay fairly independent. In fact without the government's help they would ether be living with another family member or in a nursing home.
Why are you or your parents not taking care of them? Why do you find it acceptable for strangers and taxpayers to provide for YOUR family? I feel sorry for your grandparents that they have such a shitty grandkid.
Because my grandparents value their independence and do not wish to be taken care of by their children or grandchildren. Programs like the Meals on Wheel's allows them to keep their dignity well into their later years. On top of that it is an honor and a patriotic duty to pay my taxes, knowing that they are going to help people like my grandparents get through their daily lives. Also at this time I am letting my other grandfather who can no longer live on his own stay at my house until we can find him a place to stay that will make his final days as comftible as possible.
So please take your insulting, badly thought out, incorrect, manipulative, piece of propaganda bull shit and shove it up your ass hole you insensitive piece of human wast.
PS: If you are a true patriotic American who pay's his taxes despite not agreeing with them, then on behalf of my grandparents may God bless you.
In his grandparents defense regarding Social Security, they probably paid the ss taxes from paychecks over thirty or more working years.
It's way less their responsibility to not take what they mistakenly believed they wee paying for than it is the politicians to both fix the mess they've created with it and either phase it out or turn it into a non-ponzi scheme.
And yes, if families took the responsibility for their elderly that they should...
The thing is, this is exactly how liberals/leftists/socialists think. Well, they come in two strains, actually.
There are these, who feel weak, dumb, and absolutely vulnerable... and they want a big nanny state to watch over them. They don't think they could make it on their own either way, so they'd rather be "house niggers" (regardless of race) than toiling in the fields. The fact that the gate is unlocked either never occurred to them, or they fear the even scarier ghosts and ghouls that surely must lie in wait for them out there. They wear their own chains.
Then there's the second variety of leftist... the one who is so sure of himself, whether he has accomplished anything or not, that he thinks the silver bullet solution to the world's problems is if he can run every aspect of your life, too! This is where you get mayors smugly declaring that you may no longer buy a soda larger than 16 ounces, because sodas are bad for you after all, or thundering that no one should be able to own a firearm... except for their own police and guards, of course.
The second variety is far more sinister, the first is just pathetic. But it is the first that enables the second.
It really amazes me how many libtarded moonbats are turned off by the idea of personal responsibility, of being able to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and helping yourself. Yes, we all need a little help from each other. Nobody contests that. The problem is that the government programs and social safety nets that are supposed to help people out of poverty have failed to do so. Yet suggest any mention of reform and they start screaming “Social Darwinist!” Sad.
I am all for personal responsibility and all of the stuff that this deviation is supposed to be about, but instituting the law of the jungle because efforts to stop poverty have failed is like creating a police state because efforts to stop crime have failed. If you damn republicans would see past your own noses you'd realize that what you're saying is absurd.
Looking at your page, you are obviously very, very conservative, very Christian (which is fine, but it doesn't mix well with right-wing politics), and probably a gun nut too. EVEN YOUR FUCKING USERNAME IS REPUBLICAN!
And as for your comment, the same goes for "consevatarded sunmonkeys", which is just as rude as the phrase you used for us. I'm a democratic socialist myself, and all that means is a responsibility to share wealth you don't need. It's NOT communism, which is by the way a really stupid idea. But when I try and explain that to people like YOU, they start shrieking "Communist! Anti-American!" and running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Maybe neither of us a right, but the point is you should really hear our side of the story before you talk about us like we're brain-dead.
First, I use the term, along with "moonbat," because I don't feel "liberal" is a bad word or a bad concept. Jefferson was a liberal. Of course, today he would be considered a right-wing extremist by "liberals" like Michael Moore. Which is why I ascribe the term "moonbat" to them.
And I have been trying to understand you libs. I've been studying you in your natural habitats like HuffPo and Daily Kos and r/politics. I'm sorry to say that after years of study, my opinion of you all have not improved.
You say you're for personal responsibility. Thing is, whenever the concept is brought up amoung libtarded moonbats, they tend to treat it with scorn. "Personal responsibility? You mean every man for himself? That's selfish! That's freedom to starve. We need to care about society and all because social contract."
Maybe you're not that way, but I see no reason to think otherwise with past encounters with these people.
And no, I'm not Republican, at least, not anymore. I'm a libertarian. I voted for Johnson in this election. Would have voted for Paul if he were the Rep canidate. Then again, those two are considered to the right of Hitler by many moonbats, even though half of what they stand for they agree with.
First off, I am not like HuffPo or Daily Kos for the simple reason that I'm Canadian. The most right-wing person in Canada could be considered Communist by American standards. Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
Well, if you mean personal responsibility in that way, then, no, I do not believe in personal responsibility. How would you like it if you were a homeless person and were denied food and money because you were told that it's "every man for himself"? Exactly.
Libertarian is considered a dirty word in Canada in the same way that liberal is in America, FYI.
Why SHOULD unnesecery or Excess wealth belong to another person or state? Why should it be used for the poor or industries. Why can't that excess wealth be used in any way the owner wants it? Maybe he could build something like a shelter or a store. The best way out of poverty is either charity, Hard work, or education. The third one requiring sacrifice on the first.
There is a thing called charity, Most wealthier societies aren't heartless. If anything, Canadians can be pretty right wing with Instituet De Economique de Montreal. Your style of argument makes you as bad as Blame the 1sts comment.
Obviously, I did not mean personal responsibility like that! I was simply using the hyperbolic strawman libtards use.
With its healthcare system aside, Canada is actually quite laissez-faire. It's consistently ranked as more economically free than America, and it's "liberal" Prime Minister successfully implemented evil "austerity" to its country's benefit. Somehow I think folks exaggerate when they claim Canada is socialist.
Ugh! The ones by LBtheCC are the worst. Why would anyone argue against the existence of human rights. It’s basically themselves writing their own death warrants. We are born with rights. They derive from God through nature (or just nature if you are an atheist), not government. If it comes from someone else, it’s not a right. That’s basic logic. Rights have to be inprescriptable; otherwise, they’re not rights.
I am Extremely appreciative of the fact that you think allow people other religions. Too many people are too arrogant, among other things, to do such a thing.
There is one point that I, personally, do not fully agree with: "or just nature." Things like rights are a human mindset. There is technically nothing to do with nature. [Assuming the reader is non-religious,] Humans have created a standard for "Right" and "Wrong." Nature has nothing to do human mindsets.
Aside from that, I'd say you hit the nail straight on the head.