Dumb question about the republican party.

[Mei tsuki7]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.

What I don't understand is that if Republicans are for small government and not wanting the feds involved in every inch of our lives then why are they anti-gay marriage and pro-drug war? Both laws on marriage and drugs are the government overstepping greatly.

Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

I will say this though, marriage was never strictly religious. At it's oldest it was always political and/or financial.

But it's still something that we should have a choice in doing isn't it? I mean, we should get to choose what we do to our own body's. Getting a tattoo on your forehead tends to do more harm than good but we're not going to tell people they can't do it. I just think the actions done while on drugs should be what's illegal or not. Not the action of taking them.

As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

What really? Why aren't people bitching about laws like that if they're talking about the government overstepping? Or is it because it's not the federal government but the state government? I've never understood that either. How is it bad to have a big Fed but not bad to have a big State government?

But it's their choice to do that to themselves. Though I think they shouldn't have access to disability if that's truly what caused their issues. Then again, if you drunk drive and get in a crash you still get disability if you're injured right? Even though it's your own fault?

[The Herald of Death]

Mei tsuki7

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand what about the rights that go along with it? You seem to think it's just a matter of words and not things like beign able to visit each other in the hospital, and other things that can make living as a family easier.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.

What I don't understand is that if Republicans are for small government and not wanting the feds involved in every inch of our lives then why are they anti-gay marriage and pro-drug war? Both laws on marriage and drugs are the government overstepping greatly.

Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

I will say this though, marriage was never strictly religious. At it's oldest it was always political and/or financial.

But it's still something that we should have a choice in doing isn't it? I mean, we should get to choose what we do to our own body's. Getting a tattoo on your forehead tends to do more harm than good but we're not going to tell people they can't do it. I just think the actions done while on drugs should be what's illegal or not. Not the action of taking them.

As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

What really? Why aren't people bitching about laws like that if they're talking about the government overstepping? Or is it because it's not the federal government but the state government? I've never understood that either. How is it bad to have a big Fed but not bad to have a big State government?

But it's their choice to do that to themselves. Though I think they shouldn't have access to disability if that's truly what caused their issues. Then again, if you drunk drive and get in a crash you still get disability if you're injured right? Even though it's your own fault?

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

[Mei tsuki7]

The Herald of Death

Mei tsuki7

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand what about the rights that go along with it? You seem to think it's just a matter of words and not things like beign able to visit each other in the hospital, and other things that can make living as a family easier.

The being able to visit each other in the hospital has nothing to do with federal marriage laws. Those are decided on by the hospital themselves. But I personally think that every person should be able to choose who can visit them in the hospital and the hospital shouldn't' be able to stop them. Some people would want their friends to be able to visit but not their family.

But honestly, I don't think married couples should get special treatment or rights. At most they should get tax breaks.

[The Herald of Death]

Mei tsuki7

The Herald of Death

Mei tsuki7

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand what about the rights that go along with it? You seem to think it's just a matter of words and not things like beign able to visit each other in the hospital, and other things that can make living as a family easier.

The being able to visit each other in the hospital has nothing to do with federal marriage laws. Those are decided on by the hospital themselves. But I personally think that every person should be able to choose who can visit them in the hospital and the hospital shouldn't' be able to stop them. Some people would want their friends to be able to visit but not their family.

But honestly, I don't think married couples should get special treatment or rights. At most they should get tax breaks.

Right, I forgot they should listen to the person in the coma. Maybe slap the guy in the car accident around a bit to wake him up and check with him.

And let's not consider insurance, where there is indeed a perfectly valid reason to want it as a family, and a good reason not to just let anyone say "Oh yeah that's my spouse"

[Mei tsuki7]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

I will say this though, marriage was never strictly religious. At it's oldest it was always political and/or financial.

But it's still something that we should have a choice in doing isn't it? I mean, we should get to choose what we do to our own body's. Getting a tattoo on your forehead tends to do more harm than good but we're not going to tell people they can't do it. I just think the actions done while on drugs should be what's illegal or not. Not the action of taking them.

As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

What really? Why aren't people bitching about laws like that if they're talking about the government overstepping? Or is it because it's not the federal government but the state government? I've never understood that either. How is it bad to have a big Fed but not bad to have a big State government?

But it's their choice to do that to themselves. Though I think they shouldn't have access to disability if that's truly what caused their issues. Then again, if you drunk drive and get in a crash you still get disability if you're injured right? Even though it's your own fault?

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of Repubs just seem really hypocritical when it comes to this honestly. You actually seem like you're rational with this though and actually believe it in all instances.

I thought that's what Repubs wanted since they want to get rid of a lot of safety nets and social programs?

But honestly, that's one of the things I struggle with personally. On the one hand I don't really want my tax dollars going to someone who did it to themselves and yet on the other hand my morals come into play by saying we should help everyone.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

I will say this though, marriage was never strictly religious. At it's oldest it was always political and/or financial.

But it's still something that we should have a choice in doing isn't it? I mean, we should get to choose what we do to our own body's. Getting a tattoo on your forehead tends to do more harm than good but we're not going to tell people they can't do it. I just think the actions done while on drugs should be what's illegal or not. Not the action of taking them.

As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

What really? Why aren't people bitching about laws like that if they're talking about the government overstepping? Or is it because it's not the federal government but the state government? I've never understood that either. How is it bad to have a big Fed but not bad to have a big State government?

But it's their choice to do that to themselves. Though I think they shouldn't have access to disability if that's truly what caused their issues. Then again, if you drunk drive and get in a crash you still get disability if you're injured right? Even though it's your own fault?

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of Repubs just seem really hypocritical when it comes to this honestly. You actually seem like you're rational with this though and actually believe it in all instances.

I thought that's what Repubs wanted since they want to get rid of a lot of safety nets and social programs?

But honestly, that's one of the things I struggle with personally. On the one hand I don't really want my tax dollars going to someone who did it to themselves and yet on the other hand my morals come into play by saying we should help everyone.

a lot of us don't want to get rid of safety nets. We are disgusted with them being used as hammocks, however. There is a drastic shortage of personal responsibility.
Remember the running joke is, republicans are generous with their money in donations. Democrats are generous with everyone elses money in taxes.

[Mei tsuki7]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

What really? Why aren't people bitching about laws like that if they're talking about the government overstepping? Or is it because it's not the federal government but the state government? I've never understood that either. How is it bad to have a big Fed but not bad to have a big State government?

But it's their choice to do that to themselves. Though I think they shouldn't have access to disability if that's truly what caused their issues. Then again, if you drunk drive and get in a crash you still get disability if you're injured right? Even though it's your own fault?

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of Repubs just seem really hypocritical when it comes to this honestly. You actually seem like you're rational with this though and actually believe it in all instances.

I thought that's what Repubs wanted since they want to get rid of a lot of safety nets and social programs?

But honestly, that's one of the things I struggle with personally. On the one hand I don't really want my tax dollars going to someone who did it to themselves and yet on the other hand my morals come into play by saying we should help everyone.

a lot of us don't want to get rid of safety nets. We are disgusted with them being used as hammocks, however. There is a drastic shortage of personal responsibility.
Remember the running joke is, republicans are generous with their money in donations. Democrats are generous with everyone elses money in taxes.

I really wish that the high up Repubs and the pundits were like you. I think we'd have far less partisanism if they were. All I tend to hear is "Get rid of Welfare!", "No more Medicare!" etc.

That is truth (though it would be more accurate to say that the Democrats give their money to the government for them to be generous with) and highlights the big difference between the Left and Right on this issue. The Right believes in private charity while the Left believes in public services. The Right believes in private responsibility and decisions over everything while the Left believes that sometimes the people have to be forced to do something for the good of all. The Right tends to also look at the little picture of what's directly around them while the Left tends to look at the big picture.

[Mei tsuki7]

The Herald of Death

Mei tsuki7

The Herald of Death

Mei tsuki7

I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand what about the rights that go along with it? You seem to think it's just a matter of words and not things like beign able to visit each other in the hospital, and other things that can make living as a family easier.

The being able to visit each other in the hospital has nothing to do with federal marriage laws. Those are decided on by the hospital themselves. But I personally think that every person should be able to choose who can visit them in the hospital and the hospital shouldn't' be able to stop them. Some people would want their friends to be able to visit but not their family.

But honestly, I don't think married couples should get special treatment or rights. At most they should get tax breaks.

Right, I forgot they should listen to the person in the coma. Maybe slap the guy in the car accident around a bit to wake him up and check with him.

And let's not consider insurance, where there is indeed a perfectly valid reason to want it as a family, and a good reason not to just let anyone say "Oh yeah that's my spouse"

And when did I say that we ask the person when they're already in the hospital? Everyone should have a list that they create when they are of legal age. That list should be kept with medical records, which should be held at a Federal Level or at least a State Level btw, and then looked at if there is a need.

That, again, has nothing to do with government marriage laws. That is completely up to the insurance companies. Some companies have domestic partner clauses. My mothers does. She was able to put her, now ex, partner on our insurance. The rate wasn't as low as if they were married though. She had to pay a fee to have her on there I think.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

What really? Why aren't people bitching about laws like that if they're talking about the government overstepping? Or is it because it's not the federal government but the state government? I've never understood that either. How is it bad to have a big Fed but not bad to have a big State government?

But it's their choice to do that to themselves. Though I think they shouldn't have access to disability if that's truly what caused their issues. Then again, if you drunk drive and get in a crash you still get disability if you're injured right? Even though it's your own fault?

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of Repubs just seem really hypocritical when it comes to this honestly. You actually seem like you're rational with this though and actually believe it in all instances.

I thought that's what Repubs wanted since they want to get rid of a lot of safety nets and social programs?

But honestly, that's one of the things I struggle with personally. On the one hand I don't really want my tax dollars going to someone who did it to themselves and yet on the other hand my morals come into play by saying we should help everyone.

a lot of us don't want to get rid of safety nets. We are disgusted with them being used as hammocks, however. There is a drastic shortage of personal responsibility.
Remember the running joke is, republicans are generous with their money in donations. Democrats are generous with everyone elses money in taxes.

I really wish that the high up Repubs and the pundits were like you. I think we'd have far less partisanism if they were. All I tend to hear is "Get rid of Welfare!", "No more Medicare!" etc.

That is truth (though it would be more accurate to say that the Democrats give their money to the government for them to be generous with) and highlights the big difference between the Left and Right on this issue. The Right believes in private charity while the Left believes in public services. The Right believes in private responsibility and decisions over everything while the Left believes that sometimes the people have to be forced to do something for the good of all. The Right tends to also look at the little picture of what's directly around them while the Left tends to look at the big picture.

Personally, minus those who are physically/mentally incapable of working, should be required to either take out a student loan for tech school, and attend to learn a marketable job skill, rather than the 'well, we'll just toss them money and hope that they get off the public tit'.
It may cost more short term, but long term it would cost LESS since they'd be employed in a year or so, then be taxpayers. Then...you have someone OFF the public dole and contributing to the economy, which helps even more.
Tax cuts to companies that have 100% employment in the states.
Why? Every job brought home is one less person on the government, and one more tossing money in the pot. Why do you think I don't like either side?

[Mei tsuki7]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of Repubs just seem really hypocritical when it comes to this honestly. You actually seem like you're rational with this though and actually believe it in all instances.

I thought that's what Repubs wanted since they want to get rid of a lot of safety nets and social programs?

But honestly, that's one of the things I struggle with personally. On the one hand I don't really want my tax dollars going to someone who did it to themselves and yet on the other hand my morals come into play by saying we should help everyone.

a lot of us don't want to get rid of safety nets. We are disgusted with them being used as hammocks, however. There is a drastic shortage of personal responsibility.
Remember the running joke is, republicans are generous with their money in donations. Democrats are generous with everyone elses money in taxes.

I really wish that the high up Repubs and the pundits were like you. I think we'd have far less partisanism if they were. All I tend to hear is "Get rid of Welfare!", "No more Medicare!" etc.

That is truth (though it would be more accurate to say that the Democrats give their money to the government for them to be generous with) and highlights the big difference between the Left and Right on this issue. The Right believes in private charity while the Left believes in public services. The Right believes in private responsibility and decisions over everything while the Left believes that sometimes the people have to be forced to do something for the good of all. The Right tends to also look at the little picture of what's directly around them while the Left tends to look at the big picture.

Personally, minus those who are physically/mentally incapable of working, should be required to either take out a student loan for tech school, and attend to learn a marketable job skill, rather than the 'well, we'll just toss them money and hope that they get off the public tit'.
It may cost more short term, but long term it would cost LESS since they'd be employed in a year or so, then be taxpayers. Then...you have someone OFF the public dole and contributing to the economy, which helps even more.
Tax cuts to companies that have 100% employment in the states.
Why? Every job brought home is one less person on the government, and one more tossing money in the pot. Why do you think I don't like either side?

I completely agree with everything you just said. I firmly believe that a better education system along with better educated people would cure a lot of our countries ills.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

Mei tsuki7

Old Blue Collar Joe

We're not in favor of big either damn one. But right now the biggest monster we have to fight is the fed. Then we'll deal with the state.
Don't pay them disability when they become incapable? And do what, let them starve in the street? Execute them? I'm sure Think Pink and the other far left organizations are going to just hold parades celebrating the humanity of that.
It's a no win scenario. Best solution, keep drugs (harder than pot) illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of Repubs just seem really hypocritical when it comes to this honestly. You actually seem like you're rational with this though and actually believe it in all instances.

I thought that's what Repubs wanted since they want to get rid of a lot of safety nets and social programs?

But honestly, that's one of the things I struggle with personally. On the one hand I don't really want my tax dollars going to someone who did it to themselves and yet on the other hand my morals come into play by saying we should help everyone.

a lot of us don't want to get rid of safety nets. We are disgusted with them being used as hammocks, however. There is a drastic shortage of personal responsibility.
Remember the running joke is, republicans are generous with their money in donations. Democrats are generous with everyone elses money in taxes.

I really wish that the high up Repubs and the pundits were like you. I think we'd have far less partisanism if they were. All I tend to hear is "Get rid of Welfare!", "No more Medicare!" etc.

That is truth (though it would be more accurate to say that the Democrats give their money to the government for them to be generous with) and highlights the big difference between the Left and Right on this issue. The Right believes in private charity while the Left believes in public services. The Right believes in private responsibility and decisions over everything while the Left believes that sometimes the people have to be forced to do something for the good of all. The Right tends to also look at the little picture of what's directly around them while the Left tends to look at the big picture.

Personally, minus those who are physically/mentally incapable of working, should be required to either take out a student loan for tech school, and attend to learn a marketable job skill, rather than the 'well, we'll just toss them money and hope that they get off the public tit'.
It may cost more short term, but long term it would cost LESS since they'd be employed in a year or so, then be taxpayers. Then...you have someone OFF the public dole and contributing to the economy, which helps even more.
Tax cuts to companies that have 100% employment in the states.
Why? Every job brought home is one less person on the government, and one more tossing money in the pot. Why do you think I don't like either side?

I completely agree with everything you just said. I firmly believe that a better education system along with better educated people would cure a lot of our countries ills.

Don't forget I'm that ******** retarded redneck that won't give up his damn guns.

[Ban]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Don't forget I'm that ******** retarded redneck that won't give up his damn guns.

Joe. Hey, Joe.



Is this you?

Wait...

How about this?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Ban

Old Blue Collar Joe

Don't forget I'm that ******** retarded redneck that won't give up his damn guns.

Joe. Hey, Joe.



Is this you?

Wait...

How about this?

Too young. As soon as I get cleared, I'll post a pic of me in my alien makeup from the film I shot over the week end. Scariest damn redneck ever.

[Ban]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Too young. As soon as I get cleared, I'll post a pic of me in my alien makeup from the film I shot over the week end. Scariest damn redneck ever.

Not old enough. Got it.



How's that?