robhawk

OK lets also add from your source the other factors in supporting the free loaders.. some might be wrong so I will under shoot. But I figure at least Medical needs added for sure.

Defense (FY 2007): 653.9B

Welfare (FY 2007): 254.2B(federal)+121.4B(state costs)+82.9B(local costs)=423.1

+

Health care services (FY2007):269.0B (from state but still money)=

total

692.1B

Doesnt matter if the money is federal or state, still comes out of our pockets.

free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense

What’s wrong with those ideas?

Not saying I agree with everything from the site, but they pull their info from all the same sources you call credible, the government.

You have one political view, I have another, they will never meet, and so be it.

So you cite a document just to say it doesn't contain enough information?

Now your putting words in peoples mouths, I presented information and that is all, anyone can do with it what they want. The numbers and stats from that site are just that, facts. Prove the figures wrong and then come talk, how they are worded and put together is purely political view, as is anything.

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

President Johnson's focus was on giving the poor a "hand up" not a "hand out." In his first speech announcing the War on Poverty, Johnson stated, "the war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others." Instead, the plan was to give the poor the behavioral skills and values necessary to escape from both poverty and dependence. Johnson sought to address the "the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

And many more facts and info on the subject from:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm

Once again proving my case that you can't light a fire under peoples asses no matter what the external stimulus.

My only question is, economics aside, is why should we pay for these lazy ass people that do not contribute to society? I work for a living, served my country, fought in a war, and I bust my ass daily still. I'm tired of paying for lazy sacks or crap that do nothing but use resources. It’s the principal of it all for me, I don’t want my country paying for lazy sacks of crap that don’t care about it enough to contribute anything. There should be no free rides for anyone; individuals in this country feel they are owed something by it. This is BS and needs to stop, they need to get up and help or GTFO! I personally will pay extra to get rid of them all, I don’t care about all the hippy rights BS for lazy people. My country does not owe them shit and I would love to see the day when they learn that, there is always a job anywhere, pay might not be great but you can survive. The whole excuse that the will starve and steal is moot, because that just comes back to them being lazy and not wanting to work, or feeling that they are better then a certain job. Sorry if I piss people off but I love my country and hate the asshats that just suck up its resources and never give anything back. Like I said before, the military is always hiring and will provide a good life, but the individuals were talking about are too damn lazy to make the commitment.

I "LOL" at your avatar every time I see it Isaac.

I just look at it this way, I joined the Army to not use govt programs and earn my way. I have no respect for lazy people that refuse to pull their own weight in society. Thus making me feel that they are useless and dont deserve benefits. I worked my A$$ off to get to where I am, the military is always hiring.

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

No its all done now, the order for the troops has been placed. Thanks tho!

Showed my buddy mrbretts bike and he said it looked just like it and the guy fits his discription... anyone have mrbretts number to call him? Make sure hes ok.. the rider had a black and red jacket on.

They went down on the strech between Cleveland and Shrock

One of my coworkers just told me a rider was down on cooper rd in Westerville, he was up and walking around and looking his bike over so appears ok. The bike was a green sport bike? Anyone know if Mrbrett was riding to work tonight I know he works in the area.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/obama-drops-disputed-vet-medical-plan/

Why was this ever even an idea to generate money?

"Based on the respect that President Obama has for our nation's veterans and the principled concerns expressed by veterans' leaders, the president has made the decision that the combat-wounded veterans should not be billed through their insurance policies for combat-related injuries,"

I guess it just depends on your point of view, I listen to one headphone on my bike at a reasonable level. Most cars are more soundproof now, and individuals listen to their music way louder then I listen to mine on the bike. The level I listen at allows me to still hear every thing over it.

My right eardrum was destroyed in Iraq, so I wear my headphone in my left ear when riding....

From what Kawi says the gasket is to thick and that is why thay now have a smaller one. The thick one does not allow for the proper expansion tolerence of the head.

So the gasket started leaking AGAIN!, Kawi is going to fix it again, with a new part. The old gasket was to thick they say... no recall just a factory auth repair. So now the bike is down at the beginning of the season...

Welcome and I'm in Grove City, so we will have to hook up when the weather breaks.

^^^haha

If ur at work you might want to turn the audio down.. the vid is safe.

OMG I'm never playing any shaking Wii games again.... pssst wheres my Wiimote?

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/wii-guys/1018727/

I don't understand how they're redefining the term - ASSAULT WEAPONS... InyaAzz posted the definition, it's pretty clear:

http://www.ohio-riders.net/showpost.php?p=161931&postcount=57

I'll argue that the designer of weapons designs the weapon knowing what it's primary directive is. You don't design a butter knife the same as you design a meat cleaver.

I'll never argue your right to self defense or your country, the debate is between what's prudent and necessary to defend yourself and your country. Hence, why I feel the "hobbyist" argument is the best grounds because you don't have to be prudent and necessary to enjoy a hobby. But, if I dabble in nuclear physics, that doesn't mean I should get a reactor.

The cause-effect (or in your example, no cause-no effect) argument used: "Never break into my house, jack my bike, try to assault someone in my presence and you need NEVER fear that I am a danger to you." is weak. How can I show that's your intent? What's stopping everyone from saying that, and still going nuts? How do I know you have the mental stability and have weighed the consequences of using a weapon to kill a person? From your example, you don't deal justice fairly - someone else's life is worth your motorcycle? Punching your wife in the face is equivalent to a death sentence? In those cases, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime. Why would I (as John Q. Public) want someone who's mental stability isn't known to me, to have assault weapons?

Any bullet fired from any weapon can kill someone, it takes alot less skill to kill someone with a shotgun then it does an ar-15, if you ever want to test this at a range just let me know. Pick up J. public off the street and give him a shot gun and tell him to hit a target and he stands a better chance then with an ar with no training. Your points are moot, "designs the weapon knowing what it's primary directive is." You tell me what hand guns are designed for, and how come the stats on this are overlooked, hand guns and rifles are responsible for many more deaths than assault rifles. So as far as mental stability goes... that can never be know of anyone, so why not take all guns.

Banning weapons has never been about public safety. Politicians concerned with public safety' date=' in addition to being rare or non-existent, would understand that we are much safer on an even playing field. (Evolution made man, Sam Colt made man equal.) Politicians ban guns because of one of two reasons:

1. They have a communist or "big brother" type agenda which is poorly served by an armed and informed populace. (Obama, Clinton)

2. They have personal emotions which interfere with their ability to make clear judgments and decisions. (Regan administration and Brady bill)

Firearms have rarely killed anyone. Occasionally there is a manufacturing flaw and one will explode and maim someone unexpectedly, but that is very rare and usually operator error. Humans do kill, and firearms are but one of our many tools, and not even the most efficient or terrible.

Humans have been killing each other very effectively since long before Sam Colt or the repeating rifle.... If you want to point fingers at a cause of human suffering and death, ban RELIGION. The cause of most war and prejudice on our planet is human nature, not an object, and banning the object just means that we, as thinking animals, will simply find other ways to kill each other.

On another point, big brother aside, it is not justice to punish others for the deeds of another. Why should it be illegal for you to be able to effectively defend yourself and your home, or even just go pop off a few rounds in a safe manner because it amuses you? Because someone else used a firearm improperly?

By this logic, we should ban "Assault cars" which go over 35mph or can accelerate at more than a given rate. Also, you should have to pay to install expensive gas spectrometer equipment and supply it with a blood sample in order to start the car, that wau no one can drive under the influence of any drugs either...

Reacting to what people CAN do rather than what they actually DO is poor philosophy, weak leadership and dangerous in the long run.

And one last point.... Possession of a Machine Gun gets you a lot less time than killing a dozen people. If the prospect of life in prison or the death penalty is insufficient to stop a person from killing another, what kind of penalty do you really think will be effective to stop blackmarket trading of high power weapons??

History (not to mention common sense) tells us nothing can be effectively banned 100%. So, when only the well connected and funded criminals can access firearms, they will have it all the more easy in pushing over the rest of the law-abiding unarmed population...

Think, innercity gangs will still be able to buy weapons from other organized crime, but you will only have a tire iron when 5 bangers come through your door tonight.... Assuming the government doesn't have you in an internment work camp by this point... Think you will fair well? Think the government will save you now? How long DOES it take for a cop to respond to a call at your house compared to how long it takes someone to shoot you in the face and steal your TV?[/quote']

Well said, Im ready to beat my criminal attackers with flowers.

It's hard to compare a gun to a vehicle. I understand your point and we could go 'round and 'round on gun:bike analogies and scenarios. Yes, they can both be abused, they can both kill, etc. But, the major difference is that motorcycles are not designed to intentionally harm individuals. Motorcycles can also be used in moderation - weapons don't have throttles, you can't 'dial down' an AK to make it less lethal.

Regardless of that above rant, I'm in the same boat as InyaAzz. This really shouldn't be a huge deal. This ISN'T the type of legislation thats going to lead to further and further restrictions like everyone fears. And, in the very very off chance it would ever come to that point, you'd have the entire society in an uproar - including non-gun owners if they start banning conventional handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.

There's just much bigger issues than to be concerned you can't have a grenade launcher. Call me when you can't get a 9mm or 12 gauge anymore, then you'll stir up concern for a cause from me.

Your still missing my point, why ban something that is proven less dangerous then something else, regardless of how you "think" its used. That just is stupid and shows poor leadership. Those small decisions lead me to wonder what and how this man will decide on the bigger decisions. People fear what they don't understand, that is why I brought up the bike analogy, I love my assault rifles. You love your bike, who gives a fuck why I love, them I do, and I bet, for what ever the reason, you would be pretty pissed off if someone told you that you couldn't have you bike anymore because its too dangerous. Ben Franklin had it right, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Ohh the sweet irony - maybe it's just the liberal MSM pushing this type of news though, since it's such a hot button topic.

Man charged in assault rifle killings of 3 teens

Accused in Chicago attacks was previously acquitted in 2005 fatal shooting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29423140/

He probably would've committed the same crime w/o an assault rifle, but it's just ironic that we're talking about this and he used an assault rifle.

I can tell your intelligent and your do your homework... how do you not see that the assault rifle ban is just a social ploy? Based on purely fact and stats. Everyone is like "we don't need them assault rifles as long as I gots me a glock" well we don't need super high powered sport bikes like your Busa. What happens when someone says you can no longer have your Busa but are allowed to own say a 250? My problem is that it is just too much govt control on the tax paying, law abiding citizens of this country. What happened to the citizens of the WW2 era? The ones that would stand up and fight for what they believed in, now the populace of this nation is nothing but a bunch of push overs (not directed toward anyone in this thread, just general statement).

Well when all that's said and done that's when you will need them the most... :lol:

And obviously our president is worried about it. For some ungodly reason, I'm not sure why. My point is why mess with something, in your points and case's, that is irrelevant in the big picture. When their are even proven more dangerous weapons out there. I don't get the logic in the man?

That's flawed statistics... kind of like how the majority of all accidents occur within 5 miles of your home - take a wild guess at where you do the most driving?

No LEGAL machine gun was ever used to commit a violent crime... how many citizens own a legal registered machine gun? That's like saying that no owners of Ferrari Enzos have ever been an illegal high speed chase with the cops.

You can get a class 3 license?

What about the rest of the stats and facts.. are you that hung up on Dems?