The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I reported it and also quoted it here. Hate me.

Among others. It was a gang bang report.

i was gonna say "nice" but considering the people involved…

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Tony's opinion regarding porn

A full ban would make more sense, but this is better than nothing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm truly shocked that you disagree.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

yeah, no, you're usually a top-tier poster, but that does belong here

[Antonio the Sixth]

You're free to disagree, I just love the fact that my view #triggers so many people here.

[Kingpoleon]

I reported it and also quoted it here. Hate me.

Among others. It was a gang bang report.

Any action being taken?

One infraction such as this does not a punishment make. All we ask is for some semblance of civility. There is no need to get personal.

No! The mob demands justice!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You're free to disagree, I just love the fact that my view #triggers so many people here.

Don't give yourself too much credit, Tony.  I would have put anyone's post here that said what your said.  You were just first to post. 

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You're free to disagree, I just love the fact that my view #triggers so many people here.

it's just severely inconsistent that you'd support something that would leave that sector's (disproportionately queer, female) workers at even greater risk of exploitation ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ

[publicunofficial]

This one is for BRTD:

Stop trying to make President Bullock happen. It's not going to happen.

Trump is president dude the rules have changed

"But Trump!!1!"

One of the most recognizable people in America was elected president, therefore a completely anonymous Governor of a small state can!

[Kingpoleon]

I didn't know who Trump was prior to 2015, but then again my knowledge of famous non-politicians contemporary figures is completely minimalist.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I didn't know who Trump was prior to 2015

His name recognition was at the same level as Hillary's by mid 2015

[Antonio the Sixth]

You're free to disagree, I just love the fact that my view #triggers so many people here.

it's just severely inconsistent that you'd support something that would leave that sector's (disproportionately queer, female) workers at even greater risk of exploitation ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ

This isn't the right place to start an argument, but obviously I don't support criminalizing the workers, only the people who profit off from the exploitation.

[White Trash]

They can't. AL whites will never vote for the party that doesn't hate and intend to destroy "the others".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This one is for BRTD:

Stop trying to make President Bullock happen. It's not going to happen.

Trump is president dude the rules have changed

"But Trump!!1!"

One of the most recognizable people in America was elected president, therefore a completely anonymous Governor of a small state can!

^^^
Trump is the face of name recognition.

[RINO Tom]

They can't. AL whites will never vote for the party that doesn't hate and intend to destroy "the others".

True, everyone knew that Jimmy Carter wanted to destroy "the others."

(Before someone throws the "Southern Whites voted for Ford!" quote out there, let's consider the portion of Southern Whites who lived in Virginia, Texas and Florida (much closer states, Ford having won VA) and that Ford won just SEVEN counties in Alabama, it's damn clear that Carter won a LOT of White voters in Alabama, most of them being rural, too, if you look at the county maps.)

Yes, a very dumb comment by a simple-minded poster.

[White Trash]

They can't. AL whites will never vote for the party that doesn't hate and intend to destroy "the others".

True, everyone knew that Jimmy Carter wanted to destroy "the others."

(Before someone throws the "Southern Whites voted for Ford!" quote out there, let's consider the portion of Southern Whites who lived in Virginia, Texas and Florida (much closer states, Ford having won VA) and that Ford won just SEVEN counties in Alabama, it's damn clear that Carter won a LOT of White voters in Alabama, most of them being rural, too, if you look at the county maps.)

Yes, a very dumb comment by a simple-minded poster.

Do people actually believe that? That's so stupid.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

Came here to post this

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

good f∪cking gods

[JerryArkansas]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

Its over folks.  Lets all just go home.

[White Trash]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

Jesus Christ

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new thread namer.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new thread namer.

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

[Virginiá]

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Then please explain how poverty will be eliminated within 5 years if we scrap every last bit of the social safety net, the only thing propping millions of people up right now. If that was the answer all along, why was anyone ever poor to begin with before we had those programs? You didn't even bother backing this statement up. Bootstraps alone won't magically solve everything.

All I can gather from this statement is either 1) you're a troll, 2) you're just heartless and you know damn well poverty will go through the roof, but since you got yours..., or 3) you honestly have no idea how the world works and just blindly think govt is the problem without having a clue why.

And the only thing this proves is how much ExtremeRepublican positions are ridiculed, and rightly so.

[RFayette]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new thread namer.

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Come on man, you know there isn't a single country in the world in which government spending is less than 5% of its GDP besides Sudan?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS?year_high_desc=false

I don't see how you could possibly think eliminating all social welfare spending would make the poverty problem go away.  Don't get me wrong, there are negative incentives to some welfare programs which discourage work (and thus getting out of poverty), but to claim that the problem would go away by going to a third-world-level size of government doesn't seem workable.  

To me, conservative implies a sense of stability and continuity.  Such a radical change (which seems unlikely to work, based on the statistics) seems to be the opposite of conserving anything. 

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Then please explain how poverty will be eliminated within 5 years if we scrap every last bit of the social safety net, the only thing propping millions of people up right now. If that was the answer all along, why was anyone ever poor to begin with before we had those programs? You didn't even bother backing this statement up. Bootstraps alone won't magically solve everything.

All I can gather from this statement is either 1) you're a troll, 2) you're just heartless and you know damn well poverty will go through the roof, but since you got yours..., or 3) you honestly have no idea how the world works and just blindly think govt is the problem without having a clue why.

And the only thing this proves is how much ExtremeRepublican positions are ridiculed, and rightly so.

In 1950, the poverty rate was around 30%.  From then until the late 1960s, the poverty rate decreased pretty much linearly at a rate of 1 percentage point per year to about 12%.  In the late 1960s, we created a bunch of new social programs and LBJ launched the War on Poverty.  At that point, poverty suddenly stopped decreasing, and it is still at the 1960s levels today.  With the track that we were on, poverty would have likely been eradicated in America by 1980 if the government had never intervened in the first place.  Unfortunately, human nature is that people will not work if they can get almost as much money from the government from numerous different entitlement programs (each one may not be huge, but they add up quickly).  There are, by the way, several points where making one more dollar would result in a decrease in total income after taxes and benefits due to a loss of entitlements and the government stealing a higher percentage of the income through taxation.