Imgflip Logo Icon

In the Tri-State Area , I get 3 times the BS

In the Tri-State Area , I get 3 times the BS | We'll never get an Abortion ban , so stop threatening us with it
No one can take away Social Security , so stop threatening us with it
The only people losing Healthcare shouldn't have gotten it to begin with aso stop threatening us with it 
And please stop promising to solve problems that you caused in the first place; Dear Democrat Candidates :; Sincerely , The People | image tagged in new york,new jersey,connecticut,they're the same picture,blue grinch,take it give it back | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
blank paper memeCaption this Meme
91 Comments
11 ups, 3w,
1 reply
That last one really struck home since leftists ALWAYS shriek that they can fix all the problems -- caused by their own policies and sick and twisted ideology -- if only more taxpayers' money gets endlessly flung at it.
1 up, 3w,
3 replies
NY & California my pay more taxes than any other states but that's only because there are a gazillion people living there. However, I would think that the rest of the United States pays more than NY & California.

It would have to math to be sure and I hate math. But I do it anyway, 'cause I'm a software developer and we have to math.
2 ups, 3w
Red states receive 35% if their budgets from the federal government. Blue states receive 30% of their budgets from the federal government. The difference is that blue state budgets are bloated and full of pork so it works out to a smaller percentage. But New York and California are not paying for the other states. That’s ridiculous.
1 up, 3w
Sure, as an overall amount of stolen money... errr, taxes, Taxifornia gets obscene amounts of money from we the people. You're right about the population being a key factor, but it's not just the population, it's also the tax rates. We pay the highest marginal tax rate of any state, resulting in one of the states with a top tax burden, and we have the largest population of any state. So, combined, those make a pretty devastating combination, tax-wise.

Of course anyone reading this may have noticed I said tax rates, as in plural. I wasn't just talking about our outrageous tax brackets, because out here if it moves or stands still, Dims tax it. If it's yours and the money that bought it was already taxed, and you sell it, Dims tax it again. If it doesn't even actually exist, Dims try to tax it (referring to unrealized income)

If you're really wealthy, say over a million per year income, the nominal income tax rate can be as high as 14%. I'd like to be able to personally complain about that one, but I don't earn enough. Still, they rob me blind, too.

Then throw on an additional 9+ percent sales tax in many counties (certainly here in the bay area) and a plethora of other taxes, fees, surcharges, parcel taxes, a motor tax, of course excise taxes like our insane gas tax, etc. Not coincidentally, we have the highest gas prices in the country to go along with the 62.5 cents per gallon gas tax, and along with county and local gas taxes. Add it all up and we pay almost $1 per gallon in gas tax. 91 grade premium is still over $5/gallon where I live (Santa Clara county).

My favorite is the "use tax", which means, I guess, that they're taxing you for using something. For example a car. You buy the car, drive it for however long, then sell it. The money you get from the sale has already been taxed before you bought the car, but the Dims tax it again at 7.25% - 10.25% and call it a use tax.

And of course, being kind to our oldsters, Taxifornia taxes retirement income at the same rate as non-retirees' income.

And if you only earn $10 K per year, Taxifornia wants $100 from you. So much for caring about the low income folks.

All anyone needs to do to figure out what the federal govt will try to tax next is to look at Taxifornia. Because those taxes will be coming to a govt near you soon.
2 ups, 3w,
2 replies
And they still receive far less back from those taxes despite having a gazillion people living there who also have higher living costs. We're talking about paying more per capita than they receive. People in Red States receive more proportionately than they pay.

I mean, I get it, golf is expensive. It's the sport of rich guys. So why is a dying town giving free golf lessons? Courtesy of a library?

No matter which where you slice that turkey, they sure ain't paying for it, We are. We are. They're not. Nobody on the rest of the planet is paying for it for them. We are. We are.

And the number of people living below the poverty line in New York City alone is more than the population of a lot of these states. Not more than the population of poor in a lot of those states, but the entire population of a lot of those States. So why are we doling out the bucks while we're living in ghettos while folks in other states get to drive 30 minutes each way in their SUVs just to take selfies at the Walmart to post on Facebook? Without having a job?

We're paying for that. We are. Not them. They can't afford to pay themselves to live like that. If they could, they wouldn't be poor, and therefore they wouldn't need us to pay for all their goodies then.

We are. We are.
4 ups, 3w
I think the government wastes far too much money.

The state who I know always has its hand out to the government is California. I don't know about other red states and I never heard about Utah demanding money from the Federal Government. The only thing some people in Utah are concerned about is how much land the Feds have claimed. They're not supposed to have any land but they own over 60% of Utah.

The other thing Utah needs is water. We nearly ran out in some parts of Utah. A few years back, Cedar City (in southern Utah) completely ran out of water. They were having to buy it from St. George (which is very close to the Nevada and Arizona borders). St. George was complaining because they naturally have a lot less water than Cedar City. Cedar City is at a much higher elevation, which means they get snow. St. George rarely gets snow.

Snow is the only thing that gives Utah it's water. We're in the Great Basin. No water flows out of the Great Basin into the ocean like every where else. Consequently no water flows into the Great Basin unless it is snow run off.

But anyway, I diverged a lot from what you were talking about.

I'm not rich and I don't play golf.
1 up, 3w
No they dont. Blue states receive about 5% less of their budgets from the feds than red states do. They also don’t figure in the massive bail out pork that went primarily to blue states in Democrat bills.
11 ups, 3w,
1 reply
9 ups, 3w
No, actually we aren't. Please step out of your echo chamber and do some research.
2 ups, 3w


One down, one to go!
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
No, if anything the leftists who don't want the national guard coming to town, want our borders open, and are okay with children muitilating themselves (and help them with it) are fine with those things. Please wake up and see the facts, my friend
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
You want national guard troops to be law enforcement in your city? that isn't their job. No one is mutilating children.
1 up, 2w,
1 reply
What is the job of the national guard then? They're protecting our country from inside forces (high crime in major cities)
1 up, 2w,
2 replies
The job of the national guard is to help people in natural disasters and to be available to assist the military overseas, and to help law enforcement during actual emergencies like riots. That's not happening in the cities they are being sent to
1 up, 2w
Not to assist the Military overseas, that's a George W Bush corruption.
0 ups, 1w,
1 reply
So you don't consider rampant crime an emergency? Law enforcement is overwhelmed in these cities and needs their help even though it's not riots. Do you consider high crime rates and attacks on government officials (ICE agents) a normal thing?
0 ups, 1w
Crime that happens every day is the job of the local police to deal with. It's not an emergency like a riot
1 up, 3w
Right. Because as a Conservative, Trump is putting the National Guard in cities to make crime worse! Poor Trump, crime isn't getting worse, it's actually going down. Who could have seen that coming???

Good grief, does the left ever even stop to listen to themselves?

And for your civics lesson for today, cheesy, what are the Senate Democrats doing that caused the govt shut down? It's called a filibuster. No, those republicans do not control the senate. Just a simple majority. Sadly, they still need libtards to do what's right.
8 ups, 3w
Good list, you only missed stop blaming us for things you have done, are doing and want to continue doing.
4 ups, 3w
4 ups, 3w,
2 replies
We'll also never ban guns, or speech you don't like.
[deleted]
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
“Take the guns first, go through due process second.” - Trump, 2018

Keep your guns, until it’s inconvenient for them.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Nice quote marks. But without a source, they're just another ascii character. In other words, they're meaningless.

In this case, I happen to know the statement you're talking about, and this is just another example of cherry picking a comment and repeating it with zero context. In other words, he wasn't talking about banning guns. Not even close. But libs don't care about getting it right, they just want to get peoples' support by any means necessary, which certainly includes lying. Hell, you misrepresented this so seamlessly and naturally, and you're good enough at it that you should work for CNN. Although onboarding a sinking business is not usually a good idea.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
CNN is republican owned. So, not the insult you think it is.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Twisty, CNN is Left Leaning
[deleted]
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Left leaning? Republicans control the narrative.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Really? More gaslighting, more lies from the left. CNN hates Trump and conservatives. It's been made ABUNDANTLY clear. They glaze the left like their lords.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Is CNN republican owned? Yes or no
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
no
[deleted]
0 ups, 3w
Wrong. It’s being run by John Malone who openly stated CNN is being moved away from having a liberal bias since the recent acquisition.
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
But speech Dear Leader & Co don't like...
1 up, 3w
Keep fear mongering.

Unless of course, you can prove anything, which you never have.
7 ups, 3w
Bravo, front page
4 ups, 3w,
3 replies
We need an abortion ban
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
Why?
3 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Abortion is murder
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
How exactly is it murder?
3 ups, 3w,
1 reply
It's the intentional ending of an innocent human life
1 up, 3w,
2 replies
So a fetus is a human?
3 ups, 3w,
1 reply
You call it a fetus because you want to make it seem it is anything other than a human being, when in reality it is
0 ups, 3w
Ok then should childcare begin at conception?
3 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Yes, what else could he/she possibly be?
1 up, 3w,
2 replies
A fetus… like what it’s called.

So you’d agree with the idea of that things that are living and with cells shouldn’t be killed
3 ups, 3w,
5 replies
Declaring someone is not/less than human using arbitrary and subjective definitions in order to justify denying them civil rights. Hmm... sound familiar?

I've always found it interesting how you can take any argument from the Pro-Abortion crowd, change only a couple of words, and it turns into a quote from Jefferson Davis.
0 ups, 3w
The left side of the debate? You think it was liberals who wanted to keep slavery going and conservatives who wanted to end it? 😂😂😂

It's not axiomatic. What is or isn't a person needs to be clearly defined.
0 ups, 3w
It says "all persons born"
0 ups, 3w,
2 replies
The constitution doesn't say fetuses have rights
1 up, 3w
The Constitution says humans have rights. You're trying to arbitrarily and subjectively decide who is human and who isn't.
1 up, 3w
Re-read the Fifth Amendment. It says "No person..."
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
And anyway, the 5th doesn't say what exactly a person is
1 up, 3w
It doesn't need to, because it is axiomatic. You want to create qualifications that certain persons cannot meet, in order to specifically exclude them, but those qualifications are just that; Created. Made up. Without intrinsic value. Subjective. Arbitrary.
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
I was reading the 14th
1 up, 3w
It's interesting that you should refer to that particular one, since it was specifically written to address lingering citizenship and civil rights questions regarding emancipated slaves, who were widely regarded as "not" or "less than" human by the left side of that debate. Ironically, using much the same kind of arbitrary and subjective criteria currently used to defend abortion.
3 ups, 3w,
4 replies
Fetus is a stage of human development, like infant, toddler, teen, adult, elder, etc. So to say that a fetus is a fetus and ergo not human is a taxonomical error.

I would never agree with a statement as broad as, "things that are living and with cells shouldn't be killed". I just don't believe that innocent humans should be killed.
1 up, 3w,
2 replies
Ok so what about cases of incest rape and SA?
1 up, 2w
Why should the innocent child have to suffer because of the actions of others? Somebody decided to commit a horrible crime which led to a child and you want to execute the baby? Makes total sense.
2 ups, 3w
Execute the rapist, not the baby
1 up, 3w,
1 reply
A fetus is a state of development of mammals which can lead to being a human but isn’t a human or anything like one. Well what if the mother’s gonna die in the case of the baby?

Humans are born species of the human race. Like you said a toddler and baby and teen they’re out of womb humans or atleast fully developed in the sense of them being a human

A human fly has 100,000 cells in its brain compared to the human fetus at like day 3 with only 15… so if we wanna argue cells
3 ups, 3w
Fetuses are nothing like a human? Fetuses have unique, 100% human DNA even if they don't look like older humans to the naked eye. Failing to recognize the humanity of other humans based on how they look has the type of history that I'm sure you don't want to be a part of.

If you are saying babies only become human after they are born, that's pretty arbitrary, don't you think? Can you kill a baby during birth? If not, what about at 39 weeks and 6 days gestation? 6 months? Where is the line and why?

The idea that a living baby might threaten the life of the mother is highly contested, but assuming that that is a real thing that happens, then you obviously have a choice to kill the baby instead of letting the baby kill the mother. I don't think you'll find anyone who would disagree with that. That's not the same thing as murdering a baby for any other reason
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
So you believe killing of humans is justified?

WTF dude if your mom got raped… would you want to have her have the rapist baby?
2 ups, 3w
Death penalty, war, self-defense... all legitimate reasons to take a human life, because the life isn't innocent.

If my mom got raped, God forbid, I wouldn't want to also have her murder my half-sibling, too. I'd want the rapist executed, not my innocent half-sibbling. What did he/she do to deserve that?
0 ups, 3w
You knew many pregnancies can out a woman's health and even life in danger? It's not contested by any medical doctor

Yes many conservatives would disagree with that. Many of them don't want a woman to be allowed to have an abortion even if she would die otherwise
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
So what about a 13 year old girl raped by her dad… should she keep the baby?

Also why should an and btw I HATE this argument I’m about to say. Why should some cells on day 4 of conception have more importance than the girl??? The fetus doesn’t talk or think or breath or walk or learn or cry or anything remotely human.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
A 13yo who gets raped by her father shouldn't kill the innocent baby, but probably give him or her up for adoption. There are 36 couples trying to adopt an infant for every infant available for adoption. Adoption agencies pay for all the expenses for the mother, plus counseling and whatever else.

No one is arguing that a baby that was conceived 4 days ago is more important than the girl. The girl is not going to die if she has the baby, but the baby will die if the girl gets an abortion. The girl is more important than the baby, but 0 deaths is better than 1 death
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
But you kill things every single day. So to argue the cost of a a life for a life is a terrible way to do it. And what about embryos that split in the womb and come back together technically you could’ve kill a potential sibling of yourself. Every time you ejacluate you kill potential human beings. Therefore your life argument is inconclusive

You realize 99 percent of an abortion happen before the 3rd trimester which is basically the final and more increasing changes of the baby. And 99 percent of them are medically needed. Of the 1 percent those are chosen by the parents.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
• I kill "things" every day, I don't kill innocent people

• Embryos that split in the womb and come back together are not intentionally ending an innocent human life

• Individual sperm cells (and individual eggs) are different than fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses/babies/any other stage of human development. Individual gametes die and are replaced like skin, hair, and fingernails. Fertilized eggs progress through all the stages of human development unless something goes wrong or someone kills them

• You are correct that only 1% of abortions happen in the 3rd trimester, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the intentional ending of an innocent human life. I'm not sure where the idea that 99% of abortions are medically necessary comes from. The actual statistic is that ~95% of abortions are "elective"; the other 5% are medically necessary, rape, or incest.
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Well should anyone who takes plan B be charged for murder?

What about Miscarriages?

I will agree with you that they are alive but to what extent makes there lives equal to mine
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Is someone who takes plan B intentionally ending an innocent human life? Yes. Did someone who had a miscarriage intentionally end an innocent human life? No.

I'm glad we can agree that babies in the womb are alive. I think we also agree that the life in the womb is not worth as much as yours, hence our agreement that abortion is acceptable if the life of the mother is at stake. Outside of these rare circumstances, the mother's life doesn't end if she gives birth, but the baby's life does end when intentionally ended through abortion. So the question of whose life is more valuable does not come into play in well over 95% of abortions
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
I would also like to point out the baby hasn’t experienced life like we do and has no conscience to tell them otherwise this is an argument for it’s acceptance in the cases you speak of.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Yeah, I think we all agree on exceptions for the <5% of abortions that are performed to save the life of the mother for exactly this reason
0 ups, 3w
I hate to say this but a fetus is inferior to me.

A fetus can’t think, doesn’t know its own existence. Ect ect so it’s like the saying all the people who COULD exist will NEVER exist due to genetics. So therefore I don’t see it as criminal murder or murder or something that should be punished for happening. Because humans with consciousness and life and all the things needed make the decision.
2 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Abortion is a subset of murder. Read your little slogan again with "murder" instead of "abortion"
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
Abortin isn't murder. If you want me to replace one word with a word that isn't accurate why would I do that?
1 up, 3w
Murder is the intentional ending of an innocent human life. Abortion is the intentional ending of an innocent human life. See my conversation with Epic_Sax_Man if you don't think unborn human babies are human for some reason
1 up, 3w
Slowly... taking... the... bait. Pretty sad that you fell for it. Does anyone actually think they'll ever change anyone's mind on this issue, particularly on a web site? Keep at it though, with that insightful remark, you almost convinced me that you might succeed.
Show More Comments
blank paper memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
We'll never get an Abortion ban , so stop threatening us with it No one can take away Social Security , so stop threatening us with it The only people losing Healthcare shouldn't have gotten it to begin with aso stop threatening us with it And please stop promising to solve problems that you caused in the first place; Dear Democrat Candidates :; Sincerely , The People