"PUT ME IN CHARGE " (NOT written by Z). . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of food stamp cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.
Your " home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin your "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Lets put an end to this bullshit once and for all! Damn it.
Signed, The New King.
Z: I don't know who wrote this, but aren't there parts you totally agree with? Which ones?
z
39 comments:
I've read this before and agree with everything. We need to start doing these things immediately if we are to return our country to her greatness.
I could tell you one thing, Moochie Obama didn't write it..
You can bank on that!
I'm with Lana! Hopefully our 'new king' will see the wisdom of this! I don't know, though, if he has the b***s to do it!
AND while you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.
------
Cool, we can strip the franchise from defense contractors and the stinking cops.
Ducky: "Cool, we can strip the franchise from defense contractors and the stinking cops."
Don't forget teachers at public institutions. ;-)
It would take a dictator to implement unfortunately.
And political contributions are out of the question.
Amen!
I agree with all of it. On a more realistic level, we could start by cutting off assistance to all able-bodied males.
Great find, Z!
Ducky: False equivalency.
Welfare bums take and give nothing in return.
People who work for the government are providing something.
Let's talk about the parts I DON'T agree with:
OK, we're done.
I had someone come thru my Sam's line yesterday with steaks & a lobster tail.... guess what he paid with? ...... an ebt card. I think those cards should be restricted to rice, beans, fresh fruits & vegetables, milk & oj. That's it!
Just discussing this with my wife and her sister.
Her sister raised 6 kids after she lost her husband.
No government assistance.
McDonalds Manager pay.
Yet she worked with other managers who were unwed, living with guys who claimed their kids on his taxes (as did they). Marrying would remove the subsidy.
There's a guy I know at work doing the same thing. And he's (apart from this) a "moral" decent guy.
Thirty years ago I was told by friends that I shouldn't marry my fiance, but live with her and collect ADC.
These are all "white" people.
I'm concerned with what it didn't say and about whom.
In federal national parks we have signs and Rangers that insist we don't feed the animals because it makes them dependent on humans and human interaction, reduces their freedom and makes them lazy.
On the other hand, we are told to give humans federal Free Cheese for things they did not earn, do, nor have to pay back.
Go figure.
BZ
This post sounds like my constitution for Chattering Teeth Island, where Z is the Queen regent.
Z,
I just wanted to apologize for all my liberal lunacy. I'm an idiot. Please forgive men.
Voting started out as only those who owned land. Which is why many women could not vote but not all of them. There was never a law that excluded women on the basis of gender.
Well, I agree that food stamps should be restricted to certain categories of food. People would game the system but hey, at least they couldn't walk out of the store with Lobster and Courvoisier Cognac.
I agree that there should be a qualification to vote. I'd say it should be that between income and property tax, you paid a net positive amount. (Income tax + Property Tax) - minus tax refunds = Positive number can vote, Negative number cannot. This also forces one to have a valid ID. And it would be by household, so a stay at home Mom would certainly be able to vote if she were part of above qualifying household.
It's too late, or we are in the wrong environment for the rest of that stuff, And I think the rest of it is just symptomatic of the main problem.
I think the above would take care of all the symptomatic stuff.
I would add one. If you're a single women, or family having kids that you receive government checks to use in the health and well being of those kids and you don't use the money for that purpose, you go to jail for child abuse.
The Gavel Slams, and I head off to dinner.
Kid said...
Voting started out as only those who owned land. Which is why many women could not vote but not all of them. There was never a law that excluded women on the basis of gender"
OH, my gosh! Don't TELL me that the liberal lie of our early Americans just dissing women isn't TRUE!? :-)
I honestly didn't know about the fact you cite, thank you!
This is sort of like the lie that the 3/5 law of Blacks not being a real person was that Americans found them to be 3/5 of a person...not at ALL TRUE. but the leftist indoctrination in schools continues...
I think the voting thing makes a LOT of sense.....a vested interest is never a good thing.
DaBlade...Oh, THANK YOU, SIRE! :-)
I loved your posts again...I wish more people would keep your blog in mind, you took a break and we forgot!
BZ....excellent point!
Imp...who?
Ed...I'm glad you remind us that it's WHITE FOLKS who're doing that, too. Everyone always thinks every BLack is on welfare and that bugs the @(#*&(*&#$ out of me.
Libmann.....are you drunk?
I agree with every single word, but would add, MUST volunteer for drug testing at intervals during the time of assistance, INCLUDING random testing. I had to test to get jobs to earn the money, you WILL test to get OK'd for assistance--NO exceptions!
I'm a different man Z, turned over a new leaf.
Once upon a time, I believed in the "one man, one vote" principle. It sounded good at the time. Like many things, when put to thoughtful analysis, it just doesn't make sense.
The reason I agreed with the idea was because my Dad liked it. As he got older, and more and more people were on welfare, he changed his mind.
It make sense to restrict the voting franchise to those who contribute to the system. It may sound unrealistic, but there needs to be some principle involved in who votes other than whoever can sneak across the border.
Before hardliner far-left America-despising Communist organizations like the Tea Party were arguing that it is "constitutional" for the Supreme Court to create a tax from unrelated commerce regulations in support of their cherished Medicare welfare state, the federal government was strictly limited to making sure mail and warheads are delivered to people to whom they are addressed.
Don't look to wild-eyed Stalinists like the Tea Party's Mitt Romney to fix this, or even pretend he's going to be more right-wing than Obama on any issue.
In the history of Presidency in this country, there have never been such a disrespect for the person and the office as it is for President Obama. The Republicans are completely out of line and disrespectful, that they think they can say all disrespectful about the President.. The Office is due respect even if there are disagreement. There can be disagreement about policies and they have the right to defend their views, but it does not give them the right to be disrespectful in doing so. So why it is happening ? The only rational remaining is the race card, which I hate to mention. The President and the Office is disrespected because it is occupied by a Black person and the hatred & bigotry still exist today by those who commit this offense. There have never been such disrespect to any previous President or the Office in the history of this country by Democrats, Republicans or Liberals. Like it or not, do respect the Office. So folks, what is the difference this time ? The only answer is the skin color of the sitting President, Black. Live with it. You would have him for the next 4 years and be respectful.
If we should be so UNLUCKY to have Romney wining in November, I hope that all of the Democrats show the same lack of respect for him and his office...
Were you out of the country during GWs term?
EeeZee: "I hope that all of the Democrats show the same lack of respect for him and his office..."
And how would that differ from their behavior towards Bush?
There was never a law that excluded women on the basis of gender"
OH, my gosh! Don't TELL me that the liberal lie of our early Americans just dissing women isn't TRUE!? :-)
I honestly didn't know about the fact you cite, thank you!
Five of the first states had it written in their constitutions, restricting the right to vote to men. All states had laws prohibiting women from holding office. Only New Jersey, whose constitution said, [A]ll inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote, has any record of women voting between 1776 and 1807 and that was restricted to single women who owned property. All the states adhered to British Common Law that married women surrendered their property, including money, to their husbands. By law, they couldn't vote.
In 1807, NJ passed a law stating the vote was limited to "free, white, male, citizens".
Here's another John Adams quote fer ya. In a letter to James Sullivan discussing the question of equality, asking how far Revolutionary principles should be extended.
So where do we draw the line, Adams asked Sullivan. He answered his own question: with women, for they cannot be admitted into government, "because their Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprises of War, as well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary Nurture of Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares."
Z, you're too delicate and unfit to blog on the Cares of State. Don't worry your pretty little head and stick to making mac 'n' cheese. Leave the important stuff to us men. (I'm being facetious, of course).
Kid's "facts" are demonstrably wrong. Why was the 19th amendment necessary if there were no laws against women's suffrage?
I like this New King guy. And I bet there's lots of mooches who would hate him.
My kind of King.
Liberman's lair?
Hahaha
Craig, Thx for the info. I'll try to do better. heh
Craig, you've taken to saving your comments and reprinting? :-) WOW...
I don't take the insults anymore, so you'll be gone each time, "facetious" or not. So stick around and repost all you want, but I don't insult you and I don't accept it here and you'll be busy, trust me.
EzzZee, when this president stops lying to us, we'll have respect again. I have never had any respect for a liar.... I have ALWAYS said it pains me to criticize so roundly and truthfully a sitting president of our great country, so please, don't pull anything like this on me.
You Democrats showed about as much disrespect as possible for Bush, so I'd say we're not even close to even; and you know that darned well. And, trust me, this isn't 'pay back'...Republicans want a president who loves this country and won't lie and won't appease enemies, etc... whatever color he is...
His being black has NOTHING to do with it and I respect YOU less for having even said it...what a damned lot of nerve.
Ya, we're racists though we'd vote for Alan West tomorrow for ANY position. YOu figure that out.
I have ALWAYS said it pains me to criticize so roundly and truthfully a sitting president of our great country, so please, don't pull anything like this on me.
You Democrats showed about as much disrespect as possible for Bush, so I'd say we're not even close to even; and you know that darned well. And, trust me, this isn't 'pay back'...Republicans want a president who loves this country and won't lie and won't appease enemies, etc... whatever color he is...
His being black has NOTHING to do with it and I respect YOU less for having even said it...what a damned lot of nerve.
Ya, we're racists though we'd vote for Alan West tomorrow for ANY position. YOu figure that out.
Excellent Z ! Truly Excellent. Wouldn't change a word.
Hey libs, put this one away in your email, and pull it up and read it about every 5 or 10 years. When it makes sense to you, you'll know you're at least on the road to Mental Health.
Hey Libtards. We have the trump card an you don't even suspect it.
WE HAVE ALL pretty much been where you are now. We have all been libs. We have grown up and found liberal/progressivism to be a Dead End full of Lies and Con Men.
Dig?
We've been where you are. YOU'VE never been where we are now. Dig?
It's called an Elevated Position and it gives you No Chance at gaining an upper hand unless you can convince the majority to become and Stay losers. I don't see that happening.
If you all knew how pathetic and childish you are, you might be embarrassed - If you had the capacity for that. You don't. What's That add to the mix?
Kid, thanks very much..
what you wrote here "Since we're talking about it. Dig this.
No person who:
- has actually accomplished anything in their life,
- Loves the greatest country on Earth, birthed by people who knew government oppression intimately,
- isn't a racist themself,
- isn't an imbecile themself
would never support this empty suit con man. And that's being generous.
What's That say about obama supporters." ...
should also be kept by liberals and pulled out and read very often. great job. WHO, indeed?
Thanks Z, My personal favorite is how we've all been where they've been.
We know them inside out. They don't know us.
Yet they think they're on the high road.
Typical eh?
EzzZee.....what a load of whiny crap.
Your Prezzzzz....has taken race relations back to the 60's militancy. Along with his sidekick Tonto Holder.
Suppose Romney had a PAC called.....Whites for Romney as your "One" has done with his "AA's for Obama? You'd crap a brick, wouldn't ya?
Hypocrites with selected memory...that race crud is just that pal...crud.
Alan West and Herman Cain for President...I say.
Either one makes your fraud poseur and clown look like he needs to go back to re writing his "composite" life to match those two great men.
But I suppose they along with Clarence Thomas are just to....errrr...white for you, eh?
Imp. libtard Hypocrisy. Can't cut it with a 57 Megaton Nuklar bomba surprise.
Ya, Kid, most of my conservative friends were once libs....I wasn't.
I have to admit.
My cousin has a house in Florida and he said even his lefty stockbroker buddies who loved Obama are not voting for him again....there's a LOT of good stuff like that going on.
Imp...well said!
Post a Comment