A Texans Answer to Welfare

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, I mean 'arsehole', as in jackass, douchebag, wanker, dickhead and all around unpleasant person.

It's a typical whiny rant driven article, written by someone who had what they thought to be a drunken moment of clarity in a bar)

[The_Dude 1,142]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:26 PM, slim said:

If by "massive arsehole" you mean "give them a chance to provide for themselves" then yes, that's what he means.

I read what you wrote and my response was not in line with yours. Disagreement doesn't equal not reading. (You keep trying, I'll give you that!)

Since you had problems reading my response, I'll post again - The problem is not that criminals don't pay for their own incarceration. The problem is we incarcerate criminals in the first place. Perhaps if we didn't insist on locking everyone up - even for petty crimes - then we wouldn't have such budgetary concerns.

Slim, then maybe you shouldn't begin your post with "I agree". You know, for the sake of clear communication. So you advocate anarchy? Sorry slim, we need to lock up criminals as they are a danger to the real americans in this country.

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:11 PM, slim said:

I don't agree. I'd shoot them.

But where do we start.... hmmmmm.

[Ironman140 45]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:15 PM, fishdude said:

Basically the Texan answer is to be a massive arsehole

Well we have a massive arsehole in the white house.

Why can Texas have a few ????

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:33 PM, Ironman140 said:

Well we have a massive arsehole in the white house.

Why can Texas have a few ????

Texas has a lot.

[Ironman140 45]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:34 PM, fishdude said:

Texas has a lot.

And Washington Don't ???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doesn't I think is what you mean.

How about Kentucky?

[slim 1,533]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:33 PM, fishdude said:

No, I mean 'arsehole', as in jackass, douchebag, wanker, dickhead and all around unpleasant person.

It's a typical whiny rant driven article, written by someone who had what they thought to be a drunken moment of clarity in a bar)

What was unclear about the rant? And, what was incorrect about it?

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:33 PM, Master Baiter said:

Slim, then maybe you shouldn't begin your post with "I agree". You know, for the sake of clear communication. So you advocate anarchy? Sorry slim, we need to lock up criminals as they are a danger to the real americans in this country.

But I do agree with you. We as a society shouldn't pay for criminals and the justice system. Those involved should pay for it themselves.

I don't advocate anarchy, what I advocate is communities taking care of themselves without government meddling. We lock up someone for possession of marijuana. How is that dangerous to society?

And if you think it's dangerous, is it dangerous to the tune of $90,000/year?

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:33 PM, Master Baiter said:

But where do we start.... hmmmmm.

We start at home.

You shoot people involved in the commision of crimes where the threat of death or serious bodily harm is involved. If they're not shot in the process of the crime, they're afforded a fair trial and then shot after conviction.

In non-violent crimes they're made to pay restitution and then go on about their business. No restitution? Hope you don't get shot.

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:33 PM, Ironman140 said:

Well we have a massive arsehole in the white house.

Why can Texas have a few ????

I wish Obama was half the ####### this Texan is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All of slim, all of it. It's an op ed piece of shite, like the dozens of others that are posted here on a daily basis.

[slim 1,533]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:43 PM, fishdude said:

All of slim, all of it. It's an op ed piece of shite, like the dozens of others that are posted here on a daily basis.

So he's wrong to want deadbeats on the dole to pay for their own cigarettes, alcohol and tattoos?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes slim, he's wrong. He's a moron.

[The_Dude 1,142]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:42 PM, slim said:

What was unclear about the rant? And, what was incorrect about it?

But I do agree with you. We as a society shouldn't pay for criminals and the justice system. Those involved should pay for it themselves.

I don't advocate anarchy, what I advocate is communities taking care of themselves without government meddling. We lock up someone for possession of marijuana. How is that dangerous to society?

And if you think it's dangerous, is it dangerous to the tune of $90,000/year?

Is it going to take 3 posts for clarification to make your points every time? Don't say you agree when you actually don't. I take it you are one of those "Sovereign Citizens", or you are just blathering on using their same talking points. Either way, you're wrong. Just because you don't agree with the laws doens't mean we should overturn them. I bet you think 12 year olds should be able to go to school with a gun, doesn't mean its a good idea. You people cost more than $90k per year in most cases.

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:42 PM, slim said:

We start at home.

You shoot people involved in the commision of crimes where the threat of death or serious bodily harm is involved. If they're not shot in the process of the crime, they're afforded a fair trial and then shot after conviction.

In non-violent crimes they're made to pay restitution and then go on about their business. No restitution? Hope you don't get shot.

I wish Obama was half the ####### this Texan is.

Slim, some people are not qualified to hold a weapon, or show poor judgement and play with guns when they get high or piss drunk. We don't need those idiots out trying to stop crime, that is why we have law enforcement. You know, people qualified to do the job.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:48 AM, Lord Infamous said:

The 50 pound bags of rice and beans, and powdered milk is not a bad idea though

This was under consideration in the US in the 1950s... Not just for welfare but for everyone. Every man/woman/child would get all the beans/rice/milk they could eat for free. All food markets would be required to keep them in stock for no charge and farmers would be reimbursed by the government. Hoarding would not occur because hey.. its free... you can always go grab more.

Everyone gets the basic staples for free - if you want something else then pay for it... no food stamps, no "will work for food" signs. Nobody starves, nobody is perceived to be getting "special treatment" because they do not work.

[Ironman140 45]

  On 8/29/2011 at 3:40 PM, fishdude said:

Doesn't I think is what you mean.

How about Kentucky?

you remind of a teacher in grammar school

Do you have a endless supply of rulers/ paddles to ??

She never could beat proper English into this getto rat .

But if your bringing up Ky. Don't forget Ca or Massachusetts

Edited August 29, 2011 by Ironman140

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

  On 8/29/2011 at 4:27 PM, Ironman140 said:

LoL

You remind me of a teacher in grammar school.

Do you have a endless supply of rulers/ paddles to ??

She never could beat proper English into this getto rat .

But if your bringing up Ky. Don't forget Calaforina or Massachusetts

Surely you mean California?

How about Tennessee? Florida? Mississippi?

[Ironman140 45]

Ya the spell check on iPhones sucks ;-)

Let's just make it simple

And concede from sea to shinning sea the country is full of them ;-)