The Federal Government condemns Socialism
Posted by boaz

The irony being that the poster of this article has received government checks his entire adult life and continues to avail himself of socialized medical care in his decrepitude.

The amount of jealousy and envy someone like Censored has toward men who are better than him is amazing.
Not only do you pretend the military just gives out checks for free, but you try and demean them too..
What a sad little man.
#6 | Posted by boaz

Where did I demean those who serve in the military?

And why do you think those who serve are the only ones entitled to have a government that looks out for them and makes sure they don't starve in the streets and receive proper medical care?

but you try and demean them too..you try and demean them too.. What a sad little man.
#6 | Posted by boaz

Although you might be on to something with that bit.

"The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution condemning socialism."
If those voting members were representing their districts, then likely they don't even know what they voted for or against.
Like the posters here who can't define socialism either, even though they throw the term around.
Oh, for the days when Babbles would rant against socialism while posting illiterately from the public library.
#30 | Posted by Dbt2

Or, like when Boaz posted this article, knowing that he has been receiving government checks/government medical care his entire adult life. And when that is mentioned, he says he somehow earned it. So it's not that he thinks those government benefits are a bad thing and we should get rid of it. He just doesn't want anyone else to have it.

It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. That's the job of local governments. We have two very different world views, which probably cannot be beside one another because they are so diametrically opposed. I'm of the opinion that the federal government should NOT be in the lives of the people. Local government, yes. Federal government, no. But there's not enough money at the local level for socialists to put forth their pipe dreams. That's why socialists want everything at the national level.
#37 | Posted by boaz

Yes, when a few million people are flooded out of Florida or Louisiana by the next hurricane, we should expect the state to take care of that. Seems logical and totally within reason. Like expecting the mercury spewed into the air by West Virginia to respect state borders and not poison the rest of us.

"somehow"? ROTFLMAO. Tell me, do they take taxes out of welfare? They sure took taxes from my salary. So now the military is not earning their pay? Is that what you are saying?
#38 | Posted by boaz

I'm saying that, just as we provide minimum standards for the well-being of our soldiers, we can provide minimum standards for all of our citizens.

There is nothing magical about serving in the military that makes you more entitled to basic care than anyone else. And certainly nothing magical about serving in the military that entitles you to that care for the rest of your life after you leave the service, while those who work for a living outside of the military to pay for those soldiers go without.

You cannot have socialism without secure borders.
Prove me wrong.
#39 | Posted by boaz

Whut? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

>It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. --Boaz

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
#42 | Posted by Dbt2

"Clearly just a figure of speech. Like when they added the bit about abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote. Not meant to be taken literally."
-MAGAts