Socialism Makes People Selfish.....

[_just me]

Damn, you know what really makes people selfish?

Farm subsidies. Those damn subsidies that allow me to buy a gallon of milk for $1.99 and potatoes for $1 lb. so I can selfishly feed my grandbaby and children. And myself. I also like to feed myself because I am so selfish.

Here are some more social programs that make us so goddamn selfish in America:

* Student Loans and Grants
* CIA and FBI
* The Polio Vaccine
* EPA
* Social Security
* Jail and Prison system
* Corporate and Business subsidies
* Congressional and Veteran Healthcare
* Food Stamps and WIC
* Government elected officials
* Medicare
* Medicaid and S-CHIP
* The court system
* GI Bill
* IRS
* Free Lunch Program
* The Pentagon
* FDA and USDA
* Bird Flu and Swine Flu Vaccines
* Corporate Bailouts
* City Metro and Buses, Amtrak
* PBS and NPR
* Street lights and street cleaning
* FEMA
* CDC
* Unemployment Insurance
* State Construction
* Welfare
* OSHA

You can see more at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/2 ... ed-America

[_asbestosman]

so I would instead have no other option to get the care I needed, but to pretend to commit a crime and have the government care for me.

Pretend? You could always just hire a prostitute (even one that's at least 18). That's a crime.

But you liberals do. You expect it for others, and for yourself.

I don't expect the government to provide me with food and shelter--I'm more than capable of providing for myself. I expect I will have enough savings for when I cannot work, but even if I do not, I do not expect the government to personally provide my food and shelter. I do expect it to provide law enforcement rather than having to hire private security. I expect programs to help cut down on civil unrest which, yes, includes assistance for the poor. I realize there can be drawbacks with welfare, but I think it's generally more cost effective than incarceration or simply allowing crime to increase among poor, desperate people.

[_Lemmie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3GfCmbPDN0

This spells it out simply and clearly.

Many of you in your false and unrighteous degrading of me claim "I'm" the entitled.
But what you don't get, is that had it not been for the Church believing it was their duty to help, I would right now be homeless on the street, however because of my serious health issues, I wouldn't even be able to do that (even though I've done it before intentionally for about 5 months, and it was no big deal, but I was also healthy and could move then), so I would instead have no other option to get the care I needed, but to pretend to commit a crime and have the government care for me. Not that that would be something I would want to do, because I already had this choice once before, and I chose to take my life instead. But God had other plans apparently, and I lived, so since I can't do that again, prison would be the only other option, unless there's some program etc. where people could set up everything for me etc.

Anyway, I don't "expect" anything.... Just because I'm being helped, doesn't mean I expect it, or feel "entitled" to it.
I have always been proud, and this has been the hardest thing. But you liberals do. You expect it for others, and for yourself.
You turn things into "rights" that are not rights.... The 2nd Amendment right is far more of a right than things you liberals think are rights.

Not buying it.

You have internet connection and the ability, obviously, to spend hours online each day, typing. Ask your bishop to help you find a data entry job. Your bishop has access to career services through the church welfare system, where they are prepared to help you look for a job that suits your abilities. The jobs are there, if you can't get one yourself, ask Social Services to help you. That's what they are there for.

[_Gunnar]

Lemmie has it exactly right. LDSfaqs will never become prosperous, self-sufficient, fully healthy or happy unless and until he stops blaming others (especially liberals) for his misfortunes and his less than desirable circumstances. Liberalism, contrary to what ldsfaqs insists on claiming, are not the cause of poverty, crime and poor educational levels. Numerous studies have shown that the more liberal states tend to have less crime, higher educational levels, higher average incomes and proportionally fewer people on welfare and public assistance than conservative or red states. They also tend to be more secular and less religious, and this is what fundamentalist, religious conservatives (in particular) can't stand. It really seems sometimes that they would rather see a miserable, poverty stricken and poorly educated but highly religious society than a happy, mainly secular, highly educated and prosperous one if forced to choose one or the other.

[_Kevin Graham]

. . . so I would instead have no other option to get the care I needed, but to pretend to commit a crime and have the government care for me.

You can't go to prison for pretending to commit a crime.

What was your plan?

Are you kidding me? You can go to prison for committing no crime at all.

Especially if you're black.

fuqs can always fall back on the insanity plea.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Are you kidding me? You can go to prison for committing no crime at all.

Especially if you're black.

faqs can always fall back on the insanity plea.

What kind of non-crime will land you in jail, Mr. Graham?

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

Are you kidding me? You can go to prison for committing no crime at all.

Especially if you're black.

faqs can always fall back on the insanity plea.

What kind of non-crime will land you in jail, Mr. Graham?

- Doc

Smoking pot.

[_Lemmie]

Are you kidding me? You can go to prison for committing no crime at all.

Especially if you're black.

faqs can always fall back on the insanity plea.

What kind of non-crime will land you in jail, Mr. Graham?

- Doc

Smoking pot.

Wow, it's Schrodinger's Pot. If you were visiting Four Corners, with one foot in Colorado, and decided to light up, would you be both guilty and not guilty at the same time? Or is it like basketball, where if you're dribbling you are still considered in the backcourt (in this case Colorado) until ALL of you has left the backcourt?

[_Some Schmo]

Wow, it's Schrodinger's Pot. If you were visiting Four Corners, with one foot in Colorado, and decided to light up, would you be both guilty and not guilty at the same time? Or is it like basketball, where if you're dribbling you are still considered in the backcourt (in this case Colorado) until ALL of you has left the backcourt?

I have no idea, but your question cracked me up. I think it's a reasonable query.

[_MissTish]

Wow, it's Schrodinger's Pot. If you were visiting Four Corners, with one foot in Colorado, and decided to light up, would you be both guilty and not guilty at the same time? Or is it like basketball, where if you're dribbling you are still considered in the backcourt (in this case Colorado) until ALL of you has left the backcourt?

I'm going to get stoned later, and ponder this