It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
Oh, boo-hoo. I shall cry in the corner because a new member here has decided that I don't posses the intellectual capacity to understand Protectionism and BS when I see it.
Originally posted by Honor93
unless you've paid the tax rates of the 70s, you don't know what being taxed too much is ... it's never happened since.
Originally posted by Honor93
if you answer yes to any of the above, that's not surprising.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.
me personally, no ... in this case, less is more.
Originally posted by beezzer
Are the people here; posting FOR more people on foodstamps?
Are you pro-entitlements?
Are you PRO bigger government?
All the rest of us (if I may be so bold) are for less people being dependent on government.
Why should you folks think that is a bad thing?
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.
However, in the case of redistributive entitlements, it is a case of the strong taking from the weak to give to the slightly weaker in exchange for their votes.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
What is this child talking about? Different log ins? Are you saying you intentionally edited that because you thought we were the same person!?!?!
We are not.
Yeah, ok then.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.
Originally posted by Honor93
me personally, no ... in this case, less is more.
Originally posted by beezzer
Are the people here; posting FOR more people on foodstamps?
Are you pro-entitlements?
Are you PRO bigger government?
All the rest of us (if I may be so bold) are for less people being dependent on government.
Why should you folks think that is a bad thing?
however, eliminating a program that provides sustenance to increasing numbers by the month should not even be considered for a cut at this time.
pro-entitlements ? nope but that includes the MIC
SS is not an entitlement.
disability is not an entitlement.
Medicare is not an entitlement.
food stamps are not an entitlement ... if it were, i'd be "qualified" to get them too.
i don't think less ppl depending on govt is a bad thing but the govt pulling the rug out from under those who are dependant on it isn't the right answer either.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Ok I know I am not the most popular guy on this forum, but mods if this type of behavior is allowed I do not see the point in posting here. I know you don't care if I post here but can you please look into this without bias?
.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Oh, I see, you are trying, weakly, to equate that to having the Govt steal from some to give to others as protecting them.
But wait, how about the "Leave no man behind" argument?
Will you use that next?
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NarrowGate
This post right here.
reply to post by NarrowGate
Not a single one of those quotes which says originally posted by AfterInfinity was actually posted by me. Scan this entire thread, you'll see I didn't post any of those quoted selections. Since you had nothing to quote, it had to be done manually, which requires a certain amount of knowing exactly what you're doing.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by NarrowGate
These things are hardly comparable to being struck by lightning. Thanks for playing though
You want to play what ifs, that is a what if. I did enjoy playing. That was fun to point that out.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I am only educated as far as a high school diploma, but they taught me about discussion and a form of logic.
Ok, now that is kind of weird, but sure.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Then I read the Bible, and I learned about context, logic, and proper discussion! That is where most of my education lies, so don't tell me about my sentence structure.
Sure sure.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The way it works is you brought up invalid points, I brought up valid points, you refuse to refute said valid points with anything other than "what if you get hit by lightning"...
Yeah sure.
All of those quoted sections with my username on them? Not a single one of them is legitimate. I don't know what game you're playing here, but I don't like it. Not one bit.
edit on 11-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
I did not manually edit anything and my character would show that. i am not saying they are legitimate, I am saying I did not edit any of that. If someone did, it was not me. Mods could you shed some light on what the heck just happened and who did the editing? From my best guess, it was macman.edit on 11-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)
Does anyone else see this? combine that with macman's non-stop accusations and you have a good idea of what happened. I am sure it is logged for the mods to sort out.
Mods, please inform myself and AfterI of what actually happened. We have been engaging in multiple discussions, and I would like his opinion of me not to be less than it already is. No AfterI that does not mean I actually care what you think about me, but if you chose to continue one of our discussions that is somewhat important to me, this would hurt my credibility with you. I would never resort to such dishonest and childish tactics.
and, the Navy is a standing army, how exactly ???
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
oh yes, we can because no such thing exists.
but you cannot deny that keeping up a military is one of the duties of the federal government as outlined in our Constitution
there is no provision for a "standing army".
there are plenty of arguments against that specific thing (standing army) in the Federalist papers, have you ever read them ?
our current military is not providing defense for Americans.
if you believe it is, please point out who has attacked/invaded us this decade?
oh, that's right, those ppl aren't even being tracked, gathered or sent back ... nvm.
and if or when this happens ...what good will our soldiers be to Americans, when they are on foreign soil ??
If you aren't man enough to give your spares away to a family in need, then someone with a family to feed can be man enough to TAKE them away
And yet, the Constitution specifically states that the duty of the federal government is to maintain a navy.
I don't disagree that we need to bring the troops home. We should not be the world's policeman. It is too expensive and nobody appreciates it anyway.
The cold war is over. We don't need bases in Europe.
South Korea should defend itself. We've been doing it for over 50 years and they can afford to now themselves so they need to do this.
Regardles, a soldier is still paid by the government for a service. One can agree that the service is no longer needed, but it is still a different concept than being paid for doing nothing.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by sirhumperdink
When would you like to take your drug test?
Oh, the other thing is that you have to purchase a new firearm, because cops aren't cheap and you need to protect yourself.
Originally posted by sirhumperdink
what opinion beezzer? its not an opinion that producing machines is not going to employe a large percentage of the population
care to explain yourself? because im failing to see where i injected opinion into this
edit on 11-12-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)