I'm equating it to what my wife has encountered as a cop and what I encounter with every trip to Wal-Mart. I agree, put the responsibility on the fathers. In the mean time, take the responsibility off of the responsible people who actually are forced to provide for those who are making poor choices.
Again, what your wife encounters on the job and what you encounter....dude, are you seriously using Wal-Mart to further your argument? Because if so that place can be used by anti-gunners a hell of a lot more effectively because I see some pretty retarded rednecks every time I go there that I wouldn't trust with a nail file let alone a firearm.
But your experiences still don't define the reality of the situation. You don't know who has made poor choices. And don't tell me that you've made nothing but good choices your whole life and that you haven't been saved by luck a few times. Don't tell me that there haven't been times when a stupid decision on your part couldn't have ruined your life if you'd also been unlucky at that point because damn near everyone has had times like that. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone screws up. Some people are just luckier than others, more fortunate than others and have better support networks or were raised better.
How exactly does one put the responsibility on the fathers when they skip town and are never heard from again? Or when they can work under the table and not pay a dime in child support for a year before even being threatened with jail time?
You're still assuming that single mothers are a significant sources of these problems. And you're still ignoring the fact that it's the
kids that are being assisted and they are not to blame for the mistakes of their parents.
I get it. The first called socialism/wealth re-distribution. The second is called national defense. One is provided for in the constitution, can you tell me which one?
No, it's not. Socialism is not some evil nasty entity. And no, spending unnecessary hundreds of billions on nation building and national
offense is not national defense. Far from it.
Except that bigger and better penile substiutes are covered in the constitution. I've read it a couple of times and never saw anything about bigger and better welfare programs
You guys really need to come up with a better argument than simply pointing to the constitution. If that's the best you have you'll never be able to defend this argument to people that actually give a hoot about shutting you down.
Just because it's in the constitution does not make it right. The framers were not omniscient, they weren't perfect. They made a lot of bad decisions and they had a lot of stupid ideas in addition to their wise ones.
I agree that such programs should be in line with the constitution but saying that it's not in there is not an argument against the validity of such programs, it's merely an argument that the constitution requires amending for those programs.
By the way, how do you enjoy all the benefits derived from violating the constitution? Where's the constitutional authority for NASA that is largely responsible for many of the medical technologies that will keep you alive for a few more decades? Where's the constitutional authority for the war on drugs that keeps violent, deadly potheads off your lawn?
:barf:
eek: o no!) to kick them into the gutters. But I guess it's worth it to have those evil, greedy, commie Democrats find some other place to live.