Population Control

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
[/quote]

I don’t, I equate your “I wouldn’t have begun it” sidestep with a notion as meaningless and vapid as, for example, “I wish Hitler had been killed before his rise to power.”

[quote]
Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.[/quote]

The question was whether you think it should end even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die–which it is, given that many of the children whose subsistence depends on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are sons and daughters of feckless addicts, the mentally disabled, and so-on, who simply will not provide for them.

You said yes.

Which in other words means that you think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).[/quote]

Sorry, I couldn’t read this post through the bullshit. I said coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to pay for your morality is wrong. It’s the same thing religious states do.

This reductionist bullshit makes you look pretty dumb. Since you bought a coke the other day with money that you could have fed a hungry kid with, you think buying yourself a coke is more important than the plight of children. AND I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit in a forum and discuss something with a guy that is so morally evil he places his own access to a coke above the needs of starving children. GOOD DAY![/quote]

I asked if you think the system should be dissolved even if it meant that children whose parents do not provide for them would suffer and/or starve. You said yes. Sorry that you don’t like the implications of your idiotic position.

[Feel free to disprove the emboldened portion above. If you can’t, then stop whining about my “reductionist bullshit,” which in reality is simply an expression of your position.]

By the way, I don’t have to worry about feeding hungry American children because of SNAP. Food insecurity is not starvation, child starvation essentially doesn’t exist in the country. So I am free to buy superfluous goods because I know that the kid whose mother wouldn’t provide for him is being provided for by a portion of my salary. If this weren’t so–if I had to pass by the corpses of kids on my way to work, as in the less appealing countries of East Africa–I wouldn’t be driving around in a new car.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
[/quote]

I don’t, I equate your “I wouldn’t have begun it” sidestep with a notion as meaningless and vapid as, for example, “I wish Hitler had been killed before his rise to power.”

Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.[/quote]

The question was whether you think it should end even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die–which it is, given that many of the children whose subsistence depends on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are sons and daughters of feckless addicts, the mentally disabled, and so-on, who simply will not provide for them.

You said yes.

Which in other words means that you think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).[/quote]

Sorry, I couldn’t read this post through the bullshit. I said coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to pay for your morality is wrong. It’s the same thing religious states do.

This reductionist bullshit makes you look pretty dumb. Since you bought a coke the other day with money that you could have fed a hungry kid with, you think buying yourself a coke is more important than the plight of children. AND I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit in a forum and discuss something with a guy that is so morally evil he places his own access to a coke above the needs of starving children. GOOD DAY![/quote]

I asked if you think the system should be dissolved even if it meant that children whose parents do not provide for them would suffer and/or starve. You said yes. Sorry that you don’t like the implications of your idiotic position.

[Feel free to disprove the emboldened portion above. If you can’t, then stop whining about my “reductionist bullshit,” which in reality is simply an expression of your position.]

Yes, as is my logic about your purchase of a coke.

[quote]

By the way, I don’t have to worry about feeding hungry American children because of SNAP. Food insecurity is not starvation, child starvation essentially doesn’t exist in the country. So I am free to buy superfluous goods because I know that the kid whose mother wouldn’t provide for him is being provided for by a portion of my salary. If this weren’t so–if I had to pass by the corpses of kids on my way to work, as in the less appealing countries of East Africa–I wouldn’t be driving around in a new car.[/quote]

And for your last paragraph, allow me to quote myself from earlier: "I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral. "

Thank you for exemplifying my accusation.

[BlueCollarTr8n]

If we are discussing ending the current system; perhaps it would be intersting to consider the system it replaced; and why.

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
[/quote]

I don’t, I equate your “I wouldn’t have begun it” sidestep with a notion as meaningless and vapid as, for example, “I wish Hitler had been killed before his rise to power.”

Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.[/quote]

The question was whether you think it should end even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die–which it is, given that many of the children whose subsistence depends on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are sons and daughters of feckless addicts, the mentally disabled, and so-on, who simply will not provide for them.

You said yes.

Which in other words means that you think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).[/quote]

Sorry, I couldn’t read this post through the bullshit. I said coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to pay for your morality is wrong. It’s the same thing religious states do.

This reductionist bullshit makes you look pretty dumb. Since you bought a coke the other day with money that you could have fed a hungry kid with, you think buying yourself a coke is more important than the plight of children. AND I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit in a forum and discuss something with a guy that is so morally evil he places his own access to a coke above the needs of starving children. GOOD DAY![/quote]

I asked if you think the system should be dissolved even if it meant that children whose parents do not provide for them would suffer and/or starve. You said yes. Sorry that you don’t like the implications of your idiotic position.

[Feel free to disprove the emboldened portion above. If you can’t, then stop whining about my “reductionist bullshit,” which in reality is simply an expression of your position.]

Yes, as is my logic about your purchase of a coke.

By the way, I don’t have to worry about feeding hungry American children because of SNAP. Food insecurity is not starvation, child starvation essentially doesn’t exist in the country. So I am free to buy superfluous goods because I know that the kid whose mother wouldn’t provide for him is being provided for by a portion of my salary. If this weren’t so–if I had to pass by the corpses of kids on my way to work, as in the less appealing countries of East Africa–I wouldn’t be driving around in a new car.[/quote]

And for your last paragraph, allow me to quote myself from earlier: "I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral. "

Thank you for exemplifying my accusation.

“So I can keep not doing anything”–I pay taxes, which means that I contribute to SNAP, which means this is bullshit.

[smh23]

“You think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).”

You called this “reductionist bullshit.” But this is true. This is precisely what you’re saying

That you don’t like it when it’s laid out for you like this is evidence of its utter stupidity.

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I asked if you think the system should be dissolved even if it meant that children whose parents do not provide for them would suffer and/or starve. You said yes. Sorry that you don’t like the implications of your idiotic position.

[Feel free to disprove the emboldened portion above. If you can’t, then stop whining about my “reductionist bullshit,” which in reality is simply an expression of your position.]

Yes, as is my logic about your purchase of a coke.
[/quote]

And a final point–I have faith that if you try, you will grasp the difference between one who spends money on nonessential personal goods when that same money could have been put toward the alleviation of misery elsewhere (which describes essentially every living American) and one who actively pines for alleviation from the injustice that is a system whereby children who might otherwise starve are fed as a result of the confiscation of an extremely small portion of his income.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
[/quote]

I don’t, I equate your “I wouldn’t have begun it” sidestep with a notion as meaningless and vapid as, for example, “I wish Hitler had been killed before his rise to power.”

Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.[/quote]

The question was whether you think it should end even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die–which it is, given that many of the children whose subsistence depends on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are sons and daughters of feckless addicts, the mentally disabled, and so-on, who simply will not provide for them.

You said yes.

Which in other words means that you think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).[/quote]

Sorry, I couldn’t read this post through the bullshit. I said coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to pay for your morality is wrong. It’s the same thing religious states do.

This reductionist bullshit makes you look pretty dumb. Since you bought a coke the other day with money that you could have fed a hungry kid with, you think buying yourself a coke is more important than the plight of children. AND I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit in a forum and discuss something with a guy that is so morally evil he places his own access to a coke above the needs of starving children. GOOD DAY![/quote]

I asked if you think the system should be dissolved even if it meant that children whose parents do not provide for them would suffer and/or starve. You said yes. Sorry that you don’t like the implications of your idiotic position.

[Feel free to disprove the emboldened portion above. If you can’t, then stop whining about my “reductionist bullshit,” which in reality is simply an expression of your position.]

Yes, as is my logic about your purchase of a coke.

By the way, I don’t have to worry about feeding hungry American children because of SNAP. Food insecurity is not starvation, child starvation essentially doesn’t exist in the country. So I am free to buy superfluous goods because I know that the kid whose mother wouldn’t provide for him is being provided for by a portion of my salary. If this weren’t so–if I had to pass by the corpses of kids on my way to work, as in the less appealing countries of East Africa–I wouldn’t be driving around in a new car.[/quote]

And for your last paragraph, allow me to quote myself from earlier: "I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral. "

Thank you for exemplifying my accusation.

“So I can keep not doing anything”–I pay taxes, which means that I contribute to SNAP, which means this is bullshit.[/quote]

With a gun to your head. How many kids did you help?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“You think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).”

You called this “reductionist bullshit.” But this is true. This is precisely what you’re saying

That you don’t like it when it’s laid out for you like this is evidence of its utter stupidity.[/quote]

No you turd. It is not anything close to what I’ve said. I never said anything about keeping income. I never said anything about not providing for children. I said coercion is wrong. That’s it. That does not mean I hate the children. You should probably run for political office, you’d be in good company.

I measure charity by the number of children who need welfare, you measure it by the number you can get on it. In my book, you’re the one that hurts kids and doesn’t care.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I asked if you think the system should be dissolved even if it meant that children whose parents do not provide for them would suffer and/or starve. You said yes. Sorry that you don’t like the implications of your idiotic position.

[Feel free to disprove the emboldened portion above. If you can’t, then stop whining about my “reductionist bullshit,” which in reality is simply an expression of your position.]

Yes, as is my logic about your purchase of a coke.
[/quote]

And a final point–I have faith that if you try, you will grasp the difference between one who spends money on nonessential personal goods when that same money could have been put toward the alleviation of misery elsewhere (which describes essentially every living American) and one who actively pines for alleviation from the injustice that is a system whereby children who might otherwise starve are fed as a result of the confiscation of an extremely small portion of his income.[/quote]

I donate more to charity than I pay in taxes numb nuts. Me paying taxes prevents me from helping even more children.

You vote for the government to do your good deeds for you at the expense of others. You cannot do good deeds by coercion.

[dmaddox]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]

So what does the first part of the sentence have to do with the last part? Even in this current system children die of starvation every day.[/quote]

No, they don’t.

If the parent does not feed their children then they loose their welfare check. Money does not change people it only accentuates their demons or faults. It is all about character.

And what happens to the kids when the parent loses their welfare check? Ignoring for a moment the existence of crackheads who simply won’t provide for their children, no serious economist will ever argue that a nation of hundreds of millions with a developed, industrialized, cyclical market economy is capable of full employment in perpetuity without Keynesian intervention.[/quote]

The argument from the left is that children die of starvation so that is why we need to give them more money.

And what happens to the children? Maybe they get adopted by parents who actually care about them. Maybe a local organization (Boys and Girls Club, religious organizations, or people in the community) take those children in and help them out. Why does the government have to be the answer for everything? It would be difficult, but right now children are falling through the cracks, and the government and their crack head mothers do not care about them. They only care about votes, and their money.

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

With a gun to your head. How many kids did you help?[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Help when?

Anyway, more apropos of this thread–you would rather the sustenance of children whose parents do not care for them cease to be guaranteed in the United States of America than surrender a small percentage of your income to the government for SNAP. This has already been established.

Since the feeding of hungry kids is apparently not a valid concern of the government’s, what is? What is government’s legitimate role? In other words, what is a worthy recipient of your tax dollars, given that SNAP is not?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

With a gun to your head. How many kids did you help?[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Help when?

Anyway, more apropos of this thread–you would rather the sustenance of children whose parents do not care for them cease to be guaranteed in the United States of America than surrender a small percentage of your income to the government for SNAP. This has already been established.

Since the feeding of hungry kids is apparently not a valid concern of the government’s, what is? What is government’s legitimate role? In other words, what is a worthy recipient of your tax dollars, given that SNAP is not?[/quote]

You claimed to care so much for the children. You claimed to have done your part. So, how many kids did you help? What % of your income did you give?

How about governing.

[dmaddox]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I donate more to charity than I pay in taxes numb nuts. Me paying taxes prevents me from helping even more children.

You vote for the government to do your good deeds for you at the expense of others. You cannot do good deeds by coercion.[/quote]

I donate more to charity than I pay in taxes. I make 33% of what the Vice President makes and I give 3 times the amount of money that he gives to charity. Democrates view their taxes as charity.

Charity = giving freely
Taxes = giving by threat of force or jail.
Charity =/= Taxes

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“You think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).”

You called this “reductionist bullshit.” But this is true. This is precisely what you’re saying

That you don’t like it when it’s laid out for you like this is evidence of its utter stupidity.[/quote]

No you turd. It is not anything close to what I’ve said. I never said anything about keeping income. I never said anything about not providing for children…[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.

[Emphasis mine.]

Your answer is yes–as in, “yes, SNAP should be put to and end, even if it is likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die.”

As in, “I would rather the government not collect a portion of my and other workers’ incomes for the distribution of SNAP benefits, even if this means that the continued sustenance of children whose parents do not provide for them will no longer be guaranteed.”

I’m not the one who answered “yes.” You are. Sorry…

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I donate more to charity than I pay in taxes numb nuts. Me paying taxes prevents me from helping even more children.

You vote for the government to do your good deeds for you at the expense of others. You cannot do good deeds by coercion.[/quote]

I donate more to charity than I pay in taxes. I make 33% of what the Vice President makes and I give 3 times the amount of money that he gives to charity. Democrates view their taxes as charity.

Charity = giving freely
Taxes = giving by threat of force or jail.
Charity =/= Taxes[/quote]

They consider dragging themselves off the coach one day a year and voting to be freely giving.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“You think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).”

You called this “reductionist bullshit.” But this is true. This is precisely what you’re saying

That you don’t like it when it’s laid out for you like this is evidence of its utter stupidity.[/quote]

No you turd. It is not anything close to what I’ve said. I never said anything about keeping income. I never said anything about not providing for children…[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.

[Emphasis mine.]

Your answer is yes–as in, “yes, SNAP should be put to and end, even if it is likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die.”

As in, “I would rather the government not collect a portion of my and other workers’ incomes for the distribution of SNAP benefits, even if this means that the continued sustenance of children whose parents do not provide for them will no longer be guaranteed.”

I’m not the one who answered “yes.” You are. Sorry…[/quote]

No, retard, as in steeling is wrong. And charity does a better job of caring for the poor. AND less children would be poor without the taxes. It’s like talking to a monkey.

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

With a gun to your head. How many kids did you help?[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Help when?

Anyway, more apropos of this thread–you would rather the sustenance of children whose parents do not care for them cease to be guaranteed in the United States of America than surrender a small percentage of your income to the government for SNAP. This has already been established.

Since the feeding of hungry kids is apparently not a valid concern of the government’s, what is? What is government’s legitimate role? In other words, what is a worthy recipient of your tax dollars, given that SNAP is not?[/quote]

You claimed to care so much for the children. You claimed to have done your part. So, how many kids did you help? What % of your income did you give?

How about governing.[/quote]

I never said a word about myself caring for children or having done my part. I said that I contribute to SNAP and therefore to the sustenance of children whose parents do not care for them. Try to keep up.

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“You think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).”

You called this “reductionist bullshit.” But this is true. This is precisely what you’re saying

That you don’t like it when it’s laid out for you like this is evidence of its utter stupidity.[/quote]

No you turd. It is not anything close to what I’ve said. I never said anything about keeping income. I never said anything about not providing for children…[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.

[Emphasis mine.]

Your answer is yes–as in, “yes, SNAP should be put to and end, even if it is likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die.”

As in, “I would rather the government not collect a portion of my and other workers’ incomes for the distribution of SNAP benefits, even if this means that the continued sustenance of children whose parents do not provide for them will no longer be guaranteed.”

I’m not the one who answered “yes.” You are. Sorry…[/quote]

No, retard[/quote]

Always classy.

I think this conversation is over.

Edit: by the way, using the word “retard” and then following it up in the very next sentence by writing “steeling” instead of “stealing”–that’s called irony. I don’t normally comment on spelling and grammar, but spelling errors are always so much funnier when they come in the same post as insults to someone else’s intelligence.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“You think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).”

You called this “reductionist bullshit.” But this is true. This is precisely what you’re saying

That you don’t like it when it’s laid out for you like this is evidence of its utter stupidity.[/quote]

No you turd. It is not anything close to what I’ve said. I never said anything about keeping income. I never said anything about not providing for children…[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.

[Emphasis mine.]

Your answer is yes–as in, “yes, SNAP should be put to and end, even if it is likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die.”

As in, “I would rather the government not collect a portion of my and other workers’ incomes for the distribution of SNAP benefits, even if this means that the continued sustenance of children whose parents do not provide for them will no longer be guaranteed.”

I’m not the one who answered “yes.” You are. Sorry…[/quote]

No, retard[/quote]

Always classy.

I think this conversation is over.[/quote]

It was over when your logic train went from stealing is wrong to “you hate children”. Considering the opposite direction means you believe you have the right to go into your neighbors house with a gun and take his stuff as long as a very small amount of it goes to feed needy kids. Or, I have the right to show up at your house with a gun. You are acting dumber than normal.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

With a gun to your head. How many kids did you help?[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Help when?

Anyway, more apropos of this thread–you would rather the sustenance of children whose parents do not care for them cease to be guaranteed in the United States of America than surrender a small percentage of your income to the government for SNAP. This has already been established.

Since the feeding of hungry kids is apparently not a valid concern of the government’s, what is? What is government’s legitimate role? In other words, what is a worthy recipient of your tax dollars, given that SNAP is not?[/quote]

You claimed to care so much for the children. You claimed to have done your part. So, how many kids did you help? What % of your income did you give?

How about governing.[/quote]

I never said a word about myself caring for children or having done my part. I said that I contribute to SNAP and therefore to the sustenance of children whose parents do not care for them. Try to keep up.[/quote]

So you admit that you’ve done nothing to kelp the children you say you care about?

Typical. I volunteer as a firefighter. I take medical classes in emergency pediatric medicine. I give large portions of my income to charity. I participate in things like the angel tree and other programs. BUT I’m against coercion, so the guy who votes for government programs tells me I hate the children.