Actually, a very stupid answer that ignores the current crisis.
You two are reprehensible.
A lie labeled by David Miller as "DA TROOT" is still a lie.
Edited on Dec 6, 2020 9:11am
Actually, a very stupid answer that ignores the current crisis.
You two are reprehensible.
A lie labeled by David Miller as "DA TROOT" is still a lie.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Perfect, truthful answer Boilerman.
You wouldn't give a loaf of bread to a starving man, because you have a philosophical objection to "free shit." You're a horrible person.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
You wouldn't give a loaf of bread to a starving man, because you have a philosophical objection to "free shit." You're a horrible person.
Kevin expects a free loaf of bread, and that sucks. Kevin expects a starving man to get free bread, yet demands that others pay for it. Kevin is quite self absorbed and selfish.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Kevin expects a free loaf of bread, and that sucks. Kevin expects a starving man to get free bread, yet demands that others pay for it. Kevin is quite self absorbed and selfish.
Let's see...I want people in need to receive help, and I'm willing to pay for it...and this, in Boilerman's twisted mind, means I'm "selfish."
How sick is that? Boilerman is a typical conservative---disgusting.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
As I've said before, I don't want relief for anyone.
There are honorable people who believe that way. You, Boilerman, are not one of them.
Why? Because you would never consider railing against US farmers, who are currently receiving 40% of their income from government subsidies. And the rurals who get mail delivery and internet access subsidized by Uncle Sam? I'm sure that doesn't bother you at all. And although federal spending largely flows to rural states at the expense of largely urban states, I can't imagine you complaining about that.
But when urban types get government aid, that's what really bothers you, right? There's just something about those urban folks, right Boilerman?
Boilerman has gotten "free shit" for his entire life; he just refuses to acknowledge it.
The reason urban folks getting government aid bothers him so much is that often, the recipients of that aid aren't White. And to Boilerman, that is a moral outrage. To him, only White people deserve to live--or vote.
The wealthy liberal states he constantly whines about pay out more to the federal government than they take in, all so Clem Cornpone, Tucky Buckford, and Cowboy Bob can continue living a lifestyle that isn't practical or sustainable without continuous government subsidies. Y'know, free shit. And money left over to buy GUNZ!
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
There are honorable people who believe that way. You, Boilerman, are not one of them.
Why? Because you would never consider railing against US farmers, who are currently receiving 40% of their income from government subsidies. And the rurals who get mail delivery and internet access subsidized by Uncle Sam? I'm sure that doesn't bother you at all. And although federal spending largely flows to rural states at the expense of largely urban states, I can't imagine you complaining about that.
But when urban types get government aid, that's what really bothers you, right? There's just something about those urban folks, right Boilerman?
How many times have I said no one should get any subsidies? Within the past week would be one example Farmers should not be subsidized. Next!
Boiler, CONservatives should lead by example on this issue and quit sucking on the public teat if they want anyone to take them seriously.
PJ gave the example of farmers. There are a lot of hobbyist farmers/landowners in my area. In a good year, they might make 10k to 15k and in a bad year, they are lucky to break even. Small family farms are simply not viable as an ongoing business any longer. Now, thanks to Trump, most of those guys are enjoying 40-60k a year in gubberment checks.
They gather at the local restaurants and I often hear them talk about "conservative" politics and how those big-city welfare queens don't work because they have it too good getting $200 a month in food stamps.
Ultra-rich Trump guy Tom Brady got a 960k PPP check because Trump's treasury department decided his business would go broke without it. He used some of the funds to buy a multi-million dollar pleasure boat.
We have the perpetual red state handouts, mentioned above, because those poor good old boy conservatives can't pay their own state's bills without blue state funding. You would think if someone were a truly principled conservative they would demand their conservative elected officials quit taking money from blue states so they don't create a culture of dependency.
Then we get into things like Federal Flood Insurance that is a handout so rich guys can buy property on the coast and near other bodies of water that are likely to flood.
The bottom line is conservatives take the whole grocery store from the government then have the audacity to complain, hey, you can't give that person my loaf of bread! He didn't work for it.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
How many times have I said no one should get any subsidies? Within the past week would be one example Farmers should not be subsidized. Next!
I assume, Boiler, that you're planning to reimburse the goverment for all the free shit you've gotten all your life, right? Like a free high school education for you, then for your kids? Toll-free roads? No-cost police and fire protection? Federal agencies like the FDA, the CDC, and the EPA keeping you safe and healthy, also at no cost to you?
I hope you've got lots of spare cash, because the bill will be pretty hefty, what with your sacred conservative principles and all.
