(PING to TheOldLady)
Posted on 07/26/2012 9:21:14 AM PDT by Greg Swann
well, bye.
In which case you are a mocher, a thug and a welfare slave since you accept the protection of your local police force and the US Military.
You sir are a scum-sucking, communist pinko bed-wetting slime ball. You have no clue and it shows.
(PING to TheOldLady)
Thats PRICELESS!!!!!
Feel free to steal for future use. I make ‘em to share. ;)
At every opportunity the whole family regales anyone who will listen with the horror stories of eyewitness accounts of government waste in the building trades.
Hoo Boy. With this post #30, you’ve just called Jim Robinson a “moocher, a looter, a thug, a welfare slave.”
And I see (post #41) how he feels about that.
~snort~
If I LEND you my car for the trip or RENT you my car for Vegas, you have either signed a rental lease and shaken hands and agreed to RETURN the car with a FULL gas tank.
THEFT (taking) is having no intention of ever returning the car and maybe even “forgetting” to tell me you are the one who has it.
When I took my “GI Loan”, the guarantee was by the VA, but the money came from a local bank. I took nothing and paid it monthly until “paid in full”. The bank made money, the town collected the taxes, the furniture stores made money, and everyone involved had nothing TAKEN from them.
“POST of the day” BUMP!!!
"The VA" is a proxy for "The Taxpayers". Had you defaulted on that loan, we the taxpayers would have been on the hook for it. A country can get in real trouble with that sort of thing ...
You're welcome.
That swann fellow was a d-bag, for sure. His comment #30 clearly marked him so.
There are a lot of things the government is doing, and some of "us" even benefit from them, that the government SHOULD NOT be doing. Let's not defend the indefensible just because we happened to benefit from it and some self-righteous creep was criticizing it.
I draw a distinction between accepting welfare in various forms, versus being an honest employee, contractor, or supplier to a government entity. Providing goods and services at an honest price is not "stealing".
An exception would be the affirmative-action crowd who get money for stuff that the government wouldn't pay for if it came from a straight white male with no connection to politicians.
” I swear to almighty God if Obama gets re-elected, I’m quitting my job, selling all I have, moving what’s left of my on-shore money over-seas and moving to the lowest tax state I can find. I’ll find a minimum wage job and become a burden to the system first, before this jerk in the White House gets another thin dime from me. F’ him. “
Having owned a few businesses, I agree 100%. I just closed my last one, as it wasn’t worth the anguish.
So, providing a service or product to the government, based on one's qualifications to do so, and at a fair market price (the same price paid by private sector clients) is welfare?
Sorry, but I disagree.
Now, taking government money to subsidize your business without providing fair market value in return - I definitely agree.
A vainglorious Swan(n) zotted into a little crispy, smoldering duckling!
And the smoldering little duckling is probably still squawking "YOU WILL BOW TO MY AUTHORITAH!"
It certainly has been interesting to see the comings and goings of various FR participants over the years.
Thanks for the ping, the thread was .... ummmm ... interesting, to say the least.
No need to hide. Just don't pretend to give validity to all the welfare that has been hung onto Social Security with no contribution whatsoever and treat it with the same disdain as the original contract (enforced, with no choice in the matter) between government and every long-term worker of the last 70 years.
Get rid of all the parasitic welfare first, then we can have a rational discussion.
The fact that one party to a contract engages in criminal neglect does not invalidate the other party's claim of non-performance.
The half of the SS budget, including Medicaid, and all welfare programs can make no such claim.
And we can dispense with the related claim that not taxing all actually working taxpayers more is a form of subsidy.
I wonder where in the Federal Rules of Evidence that one shows up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.