|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > December 2003 > Let's talk POLITICS and watch the fighting begin!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Let's talk POLITICS and watch the fighting begin!
|
|
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-06, 1:20 am |
| For the Americans-
Who are you voting for in 2004?
For non-Americans-
What do you think of George Bush.
Personally, I think Bush is a weasel. He looks like a weasel, acts like a weasel, and talks like a weasel.
I want someone who looks like he can walk in a room and kick ur a$$.
Bush is just like his daddy. He and his daddy don't know a damn thing about the economy. He focuses too much on international affairs and not enough on his own country.
Bring back a Democrat in 2004.
The only bad times I've had in my career were when a Republican was in office.
LET THE POLITICAL BATTLE BEGIN! | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-06, 1:50 am |
| I agree. Al Sharpton for President. | |
| Redstar 2003-12-06, 8:11 am |
| I agree with that as well... | |
| HOOLIGAN 2003-12-06, 11:06 am |
| No Al seems too weak, The country needs a visionary like Luis Farrakhan. | |
|
|
|
|
| jimbo2002 2003-12-06, 2:24 pm |
| Was it Abe Lincoln who said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time" I think that just about sums up politics. How about this, would it make much difference to our day to day lives if polticians went on strike, would we notice? Any views. | |
| thecomeons 2003-12-06, 3:17 pm |
| i think you'll find that most heads of state become public enemy number one after they have been in office eventually.
sometimes it just takes a while for the opinion to spread far enough into the voters' minds that it could take several terms for it to catch on enough for them to get voted out.
(case in point: thatcher) | |
| azimuth40 2003-12-06, 5:24 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by thecomeons
i think you'll find that most heads of state become public enemy number one after they have been in office eventually.
sometimes it just takes a while for the opinion to spread far enough into the voters' minds that it could take several terms for it to catch on enough for them to get voted out.
(case in point: thatcher)
Looking at it from afar I think most Americans thought kind of highly of her. She sure spoke her mind at least. Unfortunately most Americans don't know who anyone is, until they are popular enough on the world stage, to go by only a first name.  When her reign fell I was kind of surprised but that little war junket probably helped for a while. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-06, 7:00 pm |
| quote:
i think you'll find that most heads of state become public enemy number one after they have been in office eventually.
We'll let's look at recent US history and whether majority public sentiment went against the President after election:
FDR - NO
Truman - NO
Eisenhour - NO
Kennedy - NO
Johnson - YES
Nixon - YES (after 2nd election due to Watergate)
Ford -YES
Carter - YES
Reagan - NO
Bush 41 -YES
Clinton - NO
Bush 43 - NO | |
| Tarzanboy 2003-12-06, 11:45 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by azimuth40
Looking at it from afar I think most Americans thought kind of highly of her. She sure spoke her mind at least. Unfortunately most Americans don't know who anyone is, until they are popular enough on the world stage, to go by only a first name. When her reign fell I was kind of surprised but that little war junket probably helped for a while.
Most Americans thought highly of Churchill, however he ended up not being the PM on VJ day.
Cheers,
TB | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-07, 6:24 am |
| Bush 43 has overall approval ratings under 50%
I call that a negative view.
He only has a 30% approval rating on the economy.
I call that a failure.
Has Bush been proactive on a single issue during his entire term? no
We need a leader who is proactive not reactive. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-07, 10:09 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
Bush 43 has overall approval ratings under 50%
I call that a negative view.
He only has a 30% approval rating on the economy.
I call that a failure.
Has Bush been proactive on a single issue during his entire term? no
We need a leader who is proactive not reactive.
If you saw SNL last night then you know Al is the man. | |
| KiwiPete 2003-12-07, 7:41 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
He focuses too much on international affairs and not enough on his own country.
So glad you said that.
I've thought that about most American Presidents. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-07, 8:06 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by KiwiPete
So glad you said that.
I've thought that about most American Presidents.
Bush' first priority upon entering office was his bi-partisan education initiative which he enacted with the help of Sen. Kennedy. He succeeded in passing 2 major tax cuts, signed into law campaign finance reform, fought for and won approval for Medicare reform involving prescription drug benefits. Pres. Bush promised a new era of bi-partisan cooperation and he is the first president in the modern era NEVER to veto a bill. He has tried repeatedly to pass an energy bill, but congressional opposition has thus far stopped that. He succeded in legislating a ban on partial birth abortions, which by any standard is murder. | |
| KiwiPete 2003-12-07, 8:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
Bush' first priority upon entering office was his bi-partisan education initiative which he enacted with the help of Sen. Kennedy. etc
And well done for that, but to the rest of us, he comes across as President of the World. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-07, 9:00 pm |
| Just out of curiousity, how did Clinton come accross to you guys? | |
| KiwiPete 2003-12-07, 9:22 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
Just out of curiousity, how did Clinton come accross to you guys?
Horny.
Personally, I was very angry during that stupid impeachment crap.
People sleeping on the streets, hospitals overstretched, no money for education, but the fat cat beaurocrats were quite happy to spend tax dollars & taxpayer-funded Senate time on crap like that. | |
| azimuth40 2003-12-07, 10:06 pm |
| I did get the impression that most of the world was laughing at us and thought the whole thing stupid. Public morals vs. closet morals seems mostly a U.S. concept as is the level of pork barrel politics. | |
| azimuth40 2003-12-07, 10:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tarzanboy
Most Americans thought highly of Churchill, however he ended up not being the PM on VJ day.
Cheers,
TB
No he had to go as he was type cast as representing bad, no terrible times that people wanted to forget. Truman was lucky that he represented the end and the beginning of fantastic prosperity in the US. I suspect Roosevelt might have suffered the same fate in the next election. Stalins propaganda arm kept him in power until he died but look what happened after. The party tried to erase as many references to him as possible afterwords re-elevating Lenin as the keeper of the faithful. | |
| freak 2003-12-07, 10:29 pm |
| 1. Politicians are for the most part power-hungry people who have never actually held a real job of any consequence in the :real world:. Deal with it.
2. Democrat vs. Repubican means less and less every day.
3. Talking about politics is like irrelevance times 2. It's not like anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion - or lack thereof.
4. Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings were not a waste of tax dollars. It proved one more time that the man had no respect for the job he held, the people for whom he held it, and needless to say, his own dignity. As Lewis Black once put it, don't you think that the apology speech should have lasted longer than the act he was apologizing for in the first place?
5. Bush v.2 was the lesser of the two evils. And that's a sad statement about the political scene in this country.
6. Al Sharpton? Please. I am all for a Black president - if he/she happens to be the right person for the job - but clearly Al is not that person. And what's with the hair? | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-07, 11:11 pm |
| The only reason I mention Al is that he has more personality, eloquence, and charisma than all of the other Democratic candidates combined. The days of John F. Kennedy are over. As for black president, it would be an ingenious move to have Cheney retire after this term to be replaced by Colin Powell. The Democrats would probably get only 60-70% of the black vote instead of the traditional 95%. That would guarantee re-election of the president. | |
| KiwiPete 2003-12-08, 2:05 am |
| Black President?
God, I hope you don't vote in a black President.
I hope you don't vote in a purple President.
I hope you don't vote in a green President.
Vote in someone who can do the job.
Don't vote in a black, a woman, or Arnie, just to be politically correct or follow the crowd.
Freak for President.
 | |
| HOOLIGAN 2003-12-08, 7:54 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
Just out of curiousity, how did Clinton come accross to you guys?
Bush is very much more disliked, Clinton seemed a lot more popular. | |
| HOOLIGAN 2003-12-08, 8:02 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by KiwiPete
Black President?
God, I hope you don't vote in a black President.
I hope you don't vote in a purple President.
I hope you don't vote in a green President.
Vote in someone who can do the job.
Don't vote in a black, a woman, or Arnie, just to be politically correct or follow the crowd.
Freak for President.
I think Colon Powell can def do the job, but I see what your getting at, its all about demographics and reaching out to 'soccer Moms' and the new 'Nascar Dads' ( PC for Redneck). Well at least this year I can get to vote. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 8:10 am |
| Bush comes across to me as someone who wants to be president of the world and has way too much power for anyone's good. Clinton came across as kind of a slick weasel, although he was not as abrasive as Bush. But in general, I am afraid that to me, one politician is usually as bad as the next. They all pretty much care about their own agendas, not anyone else's. As far as impeaching Clinton, I thought that was ridiculous . . . a much, MUCH better idea would be to actually hold the candidates to their campaign promises. Impeach those who lie to the people about what they are going to do to make the country better, rather than who they are sleeping with. But it's not going to happen. The people who become politicians are usually those who you would least want to have the job. Would be better to get someone who knows how hard it is for the average person to make a living or who has to suffer under the effects of the decisions that some rich bozos make. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by KiwiPete
Black President?
God, I hope you don't vote in a black President.
I hope you don't vote in a purple President.
I hope you don't vote in a green President.
Vote in someone who can do the job.
Don't vote in a black, a woman, or Arnie, just to be politically correct or follow the crowd.
Freak for President.
that was my point when I said "Someone who can actually get the job done."
I live in the most taxed state in the US - and it's wearing thin,I'll tell you that - because we pay people to stay home and live on welfare. So those local politicians who on the one hand tell me that my lifestyle is unacceptable because I make too much money - read: Democrats - but at the same time are delighted to pilfer my hard-earned cash in the form of more taxes every year - even though said cash is a direct result of my lifestyle that they despise so much  - and give it to those lard-asses who don't want to work, I have this to say: instead of living off of the local population, try holding a *real* job. Try starting up a business in this economy, and create jobs. See how this tax burden makes it a better deal for me and people like me to go and start businesses elsewhere.
I am tired of this for two reasons. One, if you want money - work. And two, it's not like this works either. I mean, the area I live in has been having the same problems for several generations. So here's a bit of common sense - which admitedly is not that common anymore, much to my dismay
If you want to achieve something you have never achieved, you have to go at it in a way you have never done before. Makes sense to me. So to all the democrats who are crippling the economy of my state: get a friggin' clue, already. Your way does not work. My way creates job and promotes wealth. And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? | |
| MistyRing 2003-12-08, 8:49 am |
| Well said. We have the same dependency culture here. I read recently about a couple who elected to give up work and have 8 kids. They live solely off goverment benefits of £37K a year, which is about £15K over a single average wage for their area. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 8:52 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
I live in the most taxed state in the US - and it's wearing thin,I'll tell you that - because we pay people to stay home and live on welfare.
Have you ever seen a state assistance check? If you can live off of them, you are a mighty industrious fellow! | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
Have you ever seen a state assistance check? If you can live off of them, you are a mighty industrious fellow!
cry me a river... | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 9:06 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
cry me a river...
My guess is that if the people who criticized all of those who are forced to live on government assistance were forced to do the same, they wouldn't be as critical of them. It's not easy to do. Ask anyone who has to live on social security. | |
|
| I'll tell you what: I lost my job about a year ago as a Trainer. The first thing people told me was to get on unemployment.
The first thing I did - after laughing at them like a wild hyena - was pick up the phone and call all the technology companies in my state and the neighboring states to find a new job, which I did. 2 days later I was teaching as a contractor and had 2 months worth of contracts lined up.
Bottom line is: while I support the idea of helping those who are in need of help, I absolutely despise the way this help is set up in my state. People have no incentive to go back to work around here, because they are well taken care of to stay home.
I come from a family with no money. My dad accepted jobs thousands of miles away from our home *not* to be on unemployment, even though that was very hard on our family to have him away like that.
Where there is a will there is a way - I believe in that 100%, and I believe that it applies to 98% of situations out there. Our assistance system should therefore only be aimed at catering to the remaining 2% - and that assistance should inherently be *temporary*.
I have a wife who stays home and takes care of our 2 year old twins, and I have a 3rd child on the way. In other words, there are 4 of us, soon to be five, and only one paycheck.
And I am in the highest tax bracket in my state, because we collectively make more than $35K.
Most people who do not work could work. I am aware of many open jobs in my state. Not glamorous jobs, for sure, but jobs. And where I come from, it's not about the glamour of the job - it's about self-dignity, which in many, many cases, is sorely lacking... | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-08, 9:14 am |
| No compassionate person opposes assistance to the truly needy. But, in the USA, as you know, starting in the 60s, a way of thinking and a way of life was inculcated that destroyed generations of human lives. Clinton started the process of reversing this phenomenon by doing welfare reform. Now we more and more see workfare replacing welfare. The effects of the welfare state are profound, far reaching and will take many years to reverse. | |
|
| I'll give you a quick other example.
In my state, if you lose your job because it has been lost to another country, the state will pay to train you - i.e. other tax payers will pay to train you.
Maine used to have many shoe factories, most of which have been relocated to Puerto Rico because of cheaper costs.
That means that many Mainers lost their jobs, and therefore qualified for the afore-mentioned help.
Many of those chose to be retrained in IT, and came to take classes from the CTEC I used to work for. For free. That's $2000 per week per student that tax payers fronted.
Now the way I see it, I am happy these people were interested in learning a new trade instead of staying on their XXX.
BUT.
But I still think that the system makes no sense. The way I look at it, we should do something along the lines of if you take this offer to be trained at no upfront cost, then you will owe $100 per month of work in the field you were trained in for the coming three years.
$100 a month for a Network Engineer is not hard to pay back, and that money would be injected back into that pool of money used to train other Mainers who have lost their job in similar situation, which in turn would lower the amount of money that tax payers have to put in.
It would also responsibilze those who take the classes, and not make them feel like they are 100% assisted.
Common sense should win everytime... | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 9:24 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
I'll tell you what: I lost my job about a year ago as a Trainer. The first thing people told me was to get on unemployment.
The first thing I did - after laughing at them like a wild hyena - was pick up the phone and call all the technology companies in my state and the neighboring states to find a new job, which I did. 2 days later I was teaching as a contractor and had 2 months worth of contracts lined up.
Bottom line is: while I support the idea of helping those who are in need of help, I absolutely despise the way this help is set up in my state. People have no incentive to go back to work around here, because they are well taken care of to stay home.
I come from a family with no money. My dad accepted jobs thousands of miles away from our home *not* to be on unemployment, even though that was very hard on our family to have him away like that.
Where there is a will there is a way - I believe in that 100%, and I believe that it applies to 98% of situations out there. Our assistance system should therefore only be aimed at catering to the remaining 2% - and that assistance should inherently be *temporary*.
I have a wife who stays home and takes care of our 2 year old twins, and I have a 3rd child on the way. In other words, there are 4 of us, soon to be five, and only one paycheck.
And I am in the highest tax bracket in my state, because we collectively make more than $35K.
Most people who do not work could work. I am aware of many open jobs in my state. Not glamorous jobs, for sure, but jobs. And where I come from, it's not about the glamour of the job - it's about self-dignity, which in many, many cases, is sorely lacking...
You are right that temporary assistance should be strictly *temporary*. However I have noticed that in your country, a lot of people seem to think that everyone who receives government aid is a freeloader (this is usually laced with subtle racial overtones), when that is not always the case. I am not sure how things are administered in Maine, so I can't comment on the specifics of that situation, but I do know that the people that I have met living on welfare or Social Security alone have been extremely poor. There does need to be a cutoff point, or at the very least, if the person cannot find work, they should be required to give something back to the community (such as teaching literacy) while they receive aid. This would open doors of opportunity for them, would nip the critics complaints in the bud, and would provide a useful service in exchange for the service unless they were physically or mentally unable to work.
I have waited tables myself so I know what it is like to have to struggle. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 9:27 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
I'll give you a quick other example.
In my state, if you lose your job because it has been lost to another country, the state will pay to train you - i.e. other tax payers will pay to train you.
Maine used to have many shoe factories, most of which have been relocated to Puerto Rico because of cheaper costs.
That means that many Mainers lost their jobs, and therefore qualified for the afore-mentioned help.
Many of those chose to be retrained in IT, and came to take classes from the CTEC I used to work for. For free. That's $2000 per week per student that tax payers fronted.
Now the way I see it, I am happy these people were interested in learning a new trade instead of staying on their XXX.
BUT.
But I still think that the system makes no sense. The way I look at it, we should do something along the lines of if you take this offer to be trained at no upfront cost, then you will owe $100 per month of work in the field you were trained in for the coming three years.
$100 a month for a Network Engineer is not hard to pay back, and that money would be injected back into that pool of money used to train other Mainers who have lost their job in similar situation, which in turn would lower the amount of money that tax payers have to put in.
It would also responsibilze those who take the classes, and not make them feel like they are 100% assisted.
Common sense should win everytime...
That's a practical example of the way things should be administered. That way, no one feels as though they are being stiffed. Aid is a good thing in many cases; but getting aid should be dependent on paying it back when able in some form.
So why don't you run for State Senator? | |
|
| I can't I was not raised here. Plus, I do believe I can do more good in the *real world* where I can create jobs directly - and have.
You know, I have to pay some guy $20 to plow my drive way everytime it snows. I think all those people with no jobs that my taxes support could come and shovel the driveway in exchange for their assistance...
simple things, but important things to me.
As for people on welfare being poor, why on Earth should they be rich anyway??? | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-08, 9:40 am |
| There are now millionaires in China. It is amazing what can happen when you unleash human potential. Likewise it is a crime to impede that potential by teaching people that their future lies in a mailbox. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 9:44 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
I can't I was not raised here. Plus, I do believe I can do more good in the *real world* where I can create jobs directly - and have.
You know, I have to pay some guy $20 to plow my drive way everytime it snows. I think all those people with no jobs that my taxes support could come and shovel the driveway in exchange for their assistance...
simple things, but important things to me.
As for people on welfare being poor, why on Earth should they be rich anyway???
Arnold wasn't raised there either.
I agree a service should be rendered for any assistance given as much as is possible. If you are merely literate, then you have a skill that someone else can use.
I never said that those on welfare should be rich, just that some of the people on welfare that I have seen are so poor that they can barely make ends meet at all. So I think that there is a common misperception that people stay on welfare just because they are lazy slobs who want to live the good life off of the government. Government pay for anything sucks unless you are a politician. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 9:45 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
There are now millionaires in China. It is amazing what can happen when you unleash human potential. Likewise it is a crime to impede that potential by teaching people that their future lies in a mailbox.
That's why you should require that services be rendered for aid given. Get something, give something. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
Arnold wasn't raised there either.
true, but he's not a senator either | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 9:52 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
true, but he's not a senator either
Ah, I forgot. | |
| KiwiPete 2003-12-08, 2:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by MistyRing
Well said. We have the same dependency culture here. I read recently about a couple who elected to give up work and have 8 kids. They live solely off goverment benefits of £37K a year, which is about £15K over a single average wage for their area.
Good to know that it's like that in the Northern Hemisphere, too.
For a small but noticable minority, welfare is a lifestyle choice.
Kids who leave school & go straight on unemployment.
Girls who deliberately get pregnant so they can go on welfare instead of working (horrible generalisation, I know, but it's happening).
Welfare was supposed to be a temporary hand up until you got back on your feet. As I said, it's now a lifestyle choice for many.
Here's a controversial example:
Guy comes into the country from I-don't-even-remember-where, and immediately applied for unemployment benefits.
Why? Because his religion (whatever it is) requires him to pray about 15 times a day, so he can't work a fulltime job.
And they accepted that.
Here's my beef: if you have never contributed, you have no right to take.
If you've never contributed as a taxpayer, you have no right to expect welfare.
This not only applies to immigrants to a country, but especially to school leavers.
BTW, where can we vote for Thread of the Year?
| |
| jimbo2002 2003-12-08, 3:23 pm |
| Sadly, I think there is an under-class of long term or even permanently unemployed people. Its not so much a case of unemployed as unemployable. In days gone by,there were many more manual labour jobs than there are now, industrial automation, streamlining job functions, downsizing, are all starting to impact the whole work scene, not to mention jobs going to asia etc. Nowadays many people may not have a high enough standard of education, even basic education to get a job. Then there are those who want to work and earn,have the certs, but cant get a break. Sure a lot of people with the best intentions start a business, but the stats are most will fail. But I agree with what a lot of what freak said, I too have found myself out of a job and found another one myself, dont depend on others to find you a job,my present job is not exactly what I want,completely different from what I am trained for, but Im learning new stuff and Im working. | |
|
| Well, I remember when I first moved from France to Boston, and I couldn't land a job. I had a wife to support - who was going to college at the time - and I sold guitars at Daddy's Junky Music by Berklee Music School for six months before I found another job more to my liking.
Bottom line to me remains that there are jobs out there for those who really want to work. I had 2 Master's degrees and I was selling guitars - not my dream job, but it paid the bills and I didn't need to borrow or beg.
My next gig? Teaching at MIT. Sweet revenge, if you ask me | |
| jimbo2002 2003-12-08, 3:47 pm |
| You gave up a job at Dadys junky music,are you crazy! Joking aside, Im with you on that one, jobs are out there if you look, money may not be what you want, job may not be what you want but you keep your self respect and keep yourself in the job scene. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-08, 4:40 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
Well, I remember when I first moved from France to Boston, and I couldn't land a job. I had a wife to support - who was going to college at the time - and I sold guitars at Daddy's Junky Music by Berklee Music School for six months before I found another job more to my liking.
Bottom line to me remains that there are jobs out there for those who really want to work. I had 2 Master's degrees and I was selling guitars - not my dream job, but it paid the bills and I didn't need to borrow or beg.
My next gig? Teaching at MIT. Sweet revenge, if you ask me
Daddy's Junky Music Shop??? You ole hipster, you!!! | |
| Imran4sin 2003-12-08, 8:00 pm |
| quote:
Here's my beef: if you have never contributed, you have no right to take.
If you've never contributed as a taxpayer, you have no right to expect welfare.
This not only applies to immigrants to a country, but especially to school leavers.
Im with you on that one. I know ppl who are already applying for Student Hardship with out even applying for a job-- just cos they can't get one to their likings.
Religion is no excuse for not working. I dont think there is any that would encourage a person not to work and worship 24/7 (no offence to anyone). It's more of a personal issue.
Like Freak proved, if there is a will there is a way.
Im kinda tryn to keep that in mind. Although dissapointed at what I have right now but.. im gonna get soo many Certs that Employers are gonna beg me to work for em | |
| ChrisDfer 2003-12-08, 8:10 pm |
| Blah whatever people you are all <insert any words here>. If I don't want to work I shouldn't have to. Why should anyone suffer? Just because I don't have the desire to work or do anything with my life doesn't make me any less of a human. There is no reason why anyone should suffer there is enouhg wealth in the world for everyone to survive, even those who no wish to do anything. So please give me a break. | |
| Supertech 2003-12-08, 9:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDfer
So please give me a break.
earn it. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-08, 9:51 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDfer
Blah whatever people you are all <insert any words here>. If I don't want to work I shouldn't have to. Why should anyone suffer? Just because I don't have the desire to work or do anything with my life doesn't make me any less of a human. There is no reason why anyone should suffer there is enouhg wealth in the world for everyone to survive, even those who no wish to do anything. So please give me a break.
You are the most honest Certified Jackass I know. | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-08, 11:42 pm |
| Here's something to keep in mind:
The Republican's idol, Rush Limbaugh, was on unemployment. Now that he's rich, he denounces all government assistance programs.
hmmm...
Here's one for Freak, since he seems to think Republicans are fiscally responsible:
Ronald Reagan spent more money than the 39 presidents before him COMBINED leading to a deficit never seen before in the US.
Bush 41 spent more money than Reagan.
Bush 43 is spending so much money that even Republican Senators are saying that we are witnessing runaway spending. This, along with Bush's tax cuts, is building a deficit so high, our grandchildren will be paying it off.
And here are a few other tidbits:
It was Clinton who reformed welfare (not the Republicans- gasp!)
The reason why Bush has not vetoed a single bill is because only the ones he wants are making it to his desk because Republicans control the House and Senate.
The largest government assistance program for free schooling or training is given to the military through the GI bill and other school assistance programs. The military has always been predominently Republican becuase Republicans like to throw a lot into the military. So for those who oppose government assistance, blame the Republicans.
Truth is the hobgoblin of the Republicans. They gripe and gripe and gripe. But when you look at the facts, Republicans take advantage of the very things they gripe about. And what's worse is Republicans don't fix what they gripe about- Democrats do.
::watching the flames rise and tempers flare in future responses:: | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-09, 12:38 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
Here's something to keep in mind:
The Republican's idol, Rush Limbaugh, was on unemployment. Now that he's rich, he denounces all government assistance programs.
hmmm...
Here's one for Freak, since he seems to think Republicans are fiscally responsible:
Ronald Reagan spent more money than the 39 presidents before him COMBINED leading to a deficit never seen before in the US.
Bush 41 spent more money than Reagan.
Bush 43 is spending so much money that even Republican Senators are saying that we are witnessing runaway spending. This, along with Bush's tax cuts, is building a deficit so high, our grandchildren will be paying it off.
And here are a few other tidbits:
It was Clinton who reformed welfare (not the Republicans- gasp!)
The reason why Bush has not vetoed a single bill is because only the ones he wants are making it to his desk because Republicans control the House and Senate.
The largest government assistance program for free schooling or training is given to the military through the GI bill and other school assistance programs. The military has always been predominently Republican becuase Republicans like to throw a lot into the military. So for those who oppose government assistance, blame the Republicans.
Truth is the hobgoblin of the Republicans. They gripe and gripe and gripe. But when you look at the facts, Republicans take advantage of the very things they gripe about. And what's worse is Republicans don't fix what they gripe about- Democrats do.
::watching the flames rise and tempers flare in future responses::
I agree. Lets all become tough fiscal conservatives. Lets join the Democrat party. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 7:17 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
I agree. Lets all become tough fiscal conservatives. Lets join the Democrat party.
What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat again? They both sound about the same to me. | |
| MistyRing 2003-12-09, 7:39 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDfer
Blah whatever people you are all <insert any words here>. If I don't want to work I shouldn't have to. Why should anyone suffer? Just because I don't have the desire to work or do anything with my life doesn't make me any less of a human. There is no reason why anyone should suffer there is enouhg wealth in the world for everyone to survive, even those who no wish to do anything. So please give me a break.
Whilst I think (hope) you are joking, the sad reality is there are actually people who think like this. | |
|
| CuriousGeorge:
1. I never said that I thought that *all* Republicans were fiscally responsible
2. I did mention that I did not hold much esteem for most politicians out there, with no bias towards their political views
3. I did say that the *local* democrats in my state were stifling the local economy, and I stand by that statement.
4. I did say that my state was the most taxed in the Union, and I also stand by that verifiable fact.
5. Why should I bother about the opinion of someone who runs a braindum[b]p site, anyway? | |
| ChrisDfer 2003-12-09, 9:48 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by MistyRing
Whilst I think (hope) you are joking, the sad reality is there are actually people who think like this.
I was giving them a voice since no one else was standing up for them. Well except for curiousgeorge | |
|
| they already have money they didn't earn... can't they at least use their own voice? | |
| enforcer 2003-12-09, 9:59 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
they already have money they didn't earn... can't they at least use their own voice?
But that would only be the start, if they used their own voice they might start to use other things (like a brain) and get themselves a job, but then, they don't want to be doing dat, do dey.
<why, when talking about these things do I end up typing in scouse?> | |
| freak 2003-12-09, 10:11 am |
| you mat well have a point... | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 10:49 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
Here's something to keep in mind:
The Republican's idol, Rush Limbaugh, was on unemployment. Now that he's rich, he denounces all government assistance programs.
hmmm...
It doesn't count when white Republican guys get welfare since they are by nature hardworking people, not like the lazy democratic blacks who want to live on welfare indefinitely, so there is really no comparison there.
And Rush at least didn't use his welfare checks to buy himself drugs like those trashy blacks would. | |
| freak 2003-12-09, 10:54 am |
| Man, I sure hope you were being sarcastic, there.
Otherwise, this debate needs to be moved to www.AngerMisManagement.com in a hurry! | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 10:55 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
Man, I sure hope you were being sarcastic, there.
Otherwise, this debate needs to be moved to www.AngerMisManagement.com in a hurry!
Yes, it was sarcasm. Funny how only certain people get criticized for getting aid. | |
| ChrisDfer 2003-12-09, 11:05 am |
| What is even more funny is that if you were white that post would have been deleted, this thread closed, you banned and everyone in this forum would be attacking you for being a racist. Now that is what is really funny. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 11:08 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDfer
What is even more is that if you were white that post would have been deleted, this thread closed, you banned and everyone in this forum would be attacking you for being a racist. Now that is what is really funny.
I doubt it. Enforcer doesn't close many threads down here. Besides, since I probably fall into the "trashy balck" category to most people, you can be pretty sure it was intended as sarcasm. | |
| enforcer 2003-12-09, 11:08 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDfer
What is even more is that if you were white that post would have been deleted, this thread closed,
No by me it wouldn't.
I have installed Sarcasm Detector V2.1 on my PC. | |
|
| LOL
I hope it was a registered version, too | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-09, 3:16 pm |
| Nothing more fun than to watch people sling mud in a good political debate.
Maybe we can switch the subject to religion next!
Bringing those two together...
I find it ironic that Republicans often try to claim a moral and religious high ground. Many Republicans often pronounce their Christian faith, and in the same breath they denounce helping others through assistance programs.
hmmm... that doesn't sound like the good Samaritan that I read about in the bible.
What's the difference between Dem's and Republicans?
Democrats believe in paying for the programs that they support. This is why the term "tax and spend" has been coined to Dems.
Republicans, on the other hand, believe in spending more than Dems but not paying for it. In fact, they lower taxes for the wealthy. This is how the US has amassed a $6 trillion debt and rising every year.
Because the Republicans only lower taxes for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, they can't afford to, and don't care to, lower taxes for anyone else (like Freak).
::thinking of another topic to make tempers flare:: | |
|
| I think the debate on whom to tax and how is a lot more complex than what you are trying to define in that post.
Republicans believe that the wealthy drive the economy through their investing money in corporate America, which in turns creates jobs, which in turn creates people with a better buying power because they have better paychecks to buy things with.
Taxing the wealthy accomplishes two things: 1. they move their money to other countries because they *can*
2. It makes high-powered CPAs even richer because of point #1
What it does not do is realistically inject money back in the system, which is what the problem is.
As for Republicans who are religious, I am religious myself - though it does not enter in the debate in my mind. As a religious person, I believe in self-dignity and self-respect, and the importance of those two concepts to allow others to 1.feel good about themselves, and 2. become *productive* members of society. I do not believe that the current welfare program allow for that to happen.
You are the devil's advocate on this topic and you know it.
The truth of the matter is that there are two extremes in this debate: the current welfare system, and removing any kind of welfare system completely. I think that both are asynine, and believe that there must be a happy medium in there somewhere that caters to those who need this *temporary* crutch, but does not create professional parasites.
As for my taxes, they pay for your food stamps, so show some gratitude | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 3:38 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
What's the difference between Dem's and Republicans?
Democrats believe in paying for the programs that they support. This is why the term "tax and spend" has been coined to Dems.
Republicans, on the other hand, believe in spending more than Dems but not paying for it. In fact, they lower taxes for the wealthy. This is how the US has amassed a $6 trillion debt and rising every year.
Sorry, but I haven't noticed much of a difference between them. They are essentially the same party identical right down to their dislike of each other. Kind of like Anglicans and Catholics going at it. In practice I don't see much of a difference. In theory maybe, but theory doesn't count for much. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 3:45 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
Republicans believe that the wealthy drive the economy through their investing money in corporate America, which in turns creates jobs, which in turn creates people with a better buying power because they have better paychecks to buy things with.
Taxing the wealthy accomplishes two things: 1. they move their money to other countries because they *can*
2. It makes high-powered CPAs even richer because of point #1
What it does not do is realistically inject money back in the system, which is what the problem is.
Taxing the poor instead would solve this??? | |
|
| Nope. Better managing what we tax people for would. Less wasted money for all those lazy bums who live off us would.
Not to mention that more jobs means less people in need of assistance
And being poor is not something that you're born into and supposed to accept. We all get to make choices - well, most of us do... | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-09, 3:50 pm |
| Of course I'm playing devil's advocate! I enjoy watching the response.
The economic strategy you describe is known as trickle-down economics. Republicans believe that the best way to filter money to the masses is to give it all to the rich. They, in theory, will distribute the wealth to the unintelligent poor. Once the money finally gets to the working class, they will go spend it on products, which increases demand, which spurs the economy.
The only problem was with the underlying premise that the wealthy will pass on the money. In the 80's, Reagan introduced trickle-down economics. What happened was that the rich didn't distribute any money. They kept it for themselves. This is where the phrase the rich got richer and the poor got poorer was coined.
Clinton taxed the rich and the economy boomed for eight years. At the same time, he was paying down the massive deficit that Bush 41 and Reagan built up.
So history shows that both of your points are incorrect. 1. Wealthy people don't distribute new wealth. They keep it for themselves. and 2. taxing the wealthy does NOT cause them to move their money to other countries.
People often hear the phrase if you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat. That's because Democrats often help lower the tax burden for lower and middle class Americans, so they can bring home a bigger paycheck and 1.feel good about themselves, and 2. become *productive* members of society. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 4:02 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
Nope. Better managing what we tax people for would. Less wasted money for all those lazy bums who live off us would.
Not to mention that more jobs means less people in need of assistance
And being poor is not something that you're born into and supposed to accept. We all get to make choices - well, most of us do...
freak, usually you make sense, but not everyone who gets government assistance is a lazy bum. And not everyone who gets government assistance stays on it. As I have mentioned above, the people I have known who were forced to live on it, were barely able to survive. I wouldn't call being an aid recipient living an enviable lifestyle.
How about cutting the salaries of all you rich dicks who earn five times more than you are worth and put that back into the economy? Hell no, you're not supposed to accept being poor. But a lot of people don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter. Some people work really hard and then they end up with people like criticizing them as lazy bums just because they haven't had the breaks that you have or don't find the opportunities. There are lots of people who are trying to do just that. They are not lazy bums, but people doing their best to make more of themselves. You categorising a whole group of people you know nothing about simply because you feel that they are cheating you out of money is little more than classism. Like Rush Limbaugh, there are a great many people who will eat up the aid that is given them, then turn right around and say that their success is due solely to their own efforts and that the same kinds of aid that was given to them should be denied to others.
And no, cg, I do not find it surprising that the most religious among us have the hardest hearts. Religions make most of their money from the poor, after all. Making bombs or feeding the poor . . . we all know what is the priority there, right? | |
|
| 1. Please read what I wrote. I never said that all people who receive public aid are lazy bums. Further more, I did say that I believed in some kind of public aid - just not as it exists today.
2. Again, I see no reason why people who live off of others should live a great life.
3. Salary in this society is commensurate with several factors, such as education, years of experience, but also what you bring to the company's bottom line both directly and indirectly. I deserve what salary I get based on those elements.
4. As stated before, I come from a poor family. Try again with someone else your theory of the "breaks" I have gotten. It doesn't stick here. What breaks I have received I created for myself. And I continue to do so every day - that's why I moved to the US as I felt that this attitude would get rewarded better here than at home.
5. Here's a good break I got that I did not create: where I come from, education is free. So I was able to go to college and get 2 MAster's degrees for free. That was a huge break. I did have to serve in the military to repay that debt to my country. But it was still a bargain in my mind.
6. Breaks are not what you are given: breaks are what you make of them. There still are many jobs in this state that are not filled, and plenty of people who do not have one - and don't want to touch those afore-mentioned jobs. That's unacceptable to me, and will always be, no matter what social preachers can come up with.
7. Why should successful people cut their salaries so that less successful can make more, again? You will simply never convince me that there is a valid reason for that. Never. But I invite you to try | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-09, 4:32 pm |
| quote:
where I come from, education is free. So I was able to go to college and get 2 MAster's degrees for free. That was a huge break. I did have to serve in the military to repay that debt to my country. But it was still a bargain in my mind.
wow. ur a bigger hypocrite than I thought. You take advantage of a government program that is paid for by other tax payers and free to you, but you strongly criticize others who are doing the same. In fact, it is because of that government program that you are able to get the jobs that you have today. You mentioned that you taught at MIT (if that's the truth). Well, the real truth is you wouldn't have landed the job without your two Master's degrees.
quote:
Why should successful people cut their salaries so that less successful can make more, again? You will simply never convince me that there is a valid reason for that. Never. But I invite you to try
You have proven my point once again that trickle-down economics doesn't (and will never) work. Republicans give the wealthy tax breaks for the purpose of passing it on to the unintelligent poor. As you admitted, you will never pass on wealth that was handed to you.
It's amazing what greed will do to people once they see money. People like Freak have selective memories. They forget that they were helped, and that some other hard worker paid for that help. Once they get to the level that they can help others, they don't. And to make it more comical, they criticize the people who look for assistance.
::the winds of hypocricy are blowing strong in Freak's state:: | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 4:40 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
1. Please read what I wrote. I never said that all people who receive public aid are lazy bums. Further more, I did say that I believed in some kind of public aid - just not as it exists today.
You seemed to imply that all who were receiving aid with your tax dollars were lazy bums just because they were receiving aid
quote:
Originally posted by freak
2. Again, I see no reason why people who live off of others should live a great life.
Neither do I. But you seem to think that "living on government assistance" is a really attractive option. You make it sound as though people are lining up in droves to recieve a paltry check that will not keep their children fed or their creditors off of their back while they manage to improve themselves. That's almost like saying "we need to get rid of monasteries since they are causing all of our young men to not reproduce . . . after all, it's such an ATTRACTIVE option!". Anyone who thinks that governmentally assisted living is a good living is nuts. Only those desperate or retarded would resort to it unless necessary. The people in the system are not a bunch of lazy drunken bums who dont want to work, but people who need help temporarily until they can manage.
quote:
Originally posted by freak
3. Salary in this society is commensurate with several factors, such as education, years of experience, but also what you bring to the company's bottom line both directly and indirectly. I deserve what salary I get based on those elements.
*You* deserve what you get . . . oh, of COURSE . . . unless you were one of the ones receiving assistance. Then you would be a lazy bum, right? The wealthy ALWAYS are sure that they deserve what they get. And there are some of us here who can see human beings as being worth more than just the bottom line. I don't expect a man like you to understand that, though. Maybe we should just gas retarded kids since they are a drain on our economy and cannot put anything back into it?
quote:
Originally posted by freak
4. As stated before, I come from a poor family. Try again with someone else your theory of the "breaks" I have gotten. It doesn't stick here. What breaks I have received I created for myself. And I continue to do so every day - that's why I moved to the US as I felt that this attitude would get rewarded better here than at home.
Yes, sure. Once you have made it, "you always create the breaks for yourself". However, for every one person like you, there are 10 who work just as hard and don't get to your position. Where I live there are so many people that people more or less have to leave to find decent work. The salaries are depressed, and people with Ph.D.'s even find it hard to get work. Easy for you say pick up everything and move . . . with WHAT? our looks? The truth is, there ARE NO self-made men. EVERYONE has had aid from someone, but all too often once the privileged get on top, they turn around and say that they did it all on their own. Resourceful me, unlike the rest of you lazy buggers! I guess the rest of us who are still struggling desperately to support our children are just too lazy or stupid, unlike you of course!
quote:
Originally posted by freak
5. Here's a good break I got that I did not create: where I come from, education is free. So I was able to go to college and get 2 MAster's degrees for free. That was a huge break. I did have to serve in the military to repay that debt to my country. But it was still a bargain in my mind.
Yes, it is a huge break . . . that is still not available to all that need assistance. A young able bodied male is not usually the primary people you would think need help in the first place. Still, that was lucky for you . . . not all people have the same resources. Education is not free where I live. Most kids don't finish primary school. So here you are telling me that you got a special break, but that you made all of your own breaks at the same time. Excellent! Maybe you owe a little something back to the people who gave it to you. But then again, why give back to others when you got the type of aid that you required since it would reduce your wages now? Nothing like a little selfishness.
quote:
Originally posted by freak
6. Breaks are not what you are given: breaks are what you make of them. There still are many jobs in this state that are not filled, and plenty of people who do not have one - and don't want to touch those afore-mentioned jobs. That's unacceptable to me, and will always be, no matter what social preachers can come up with.
There are many people who do touch shitty jobs and work at them for years because they have no choice. if you can show me some guy rich from government assistance who refuses to work in a job simply because it doesn't suit his social position, I'll concede that you have a point. But there are many, many more people like me who have waited tables, worked in shoe stores and all manner of other jobs in order to support our families. With four children and no husband, trust me this is no easy task. However to people like you, the ones who arent working arent working out of choice. To me it seems that there are lots of people even in your country who would be glad to work doing anything, but either cant find a job or cant find a job that will support them and their families without additional help.
quote:
Originally posted by freak
7. Why should successful people cut their salaries so that less successful can make more, again? You will simply never convince me that there is a valid reason for that. Never. But I invite you to try
Because the most successful people were either born with silver spoons in their mouths and never earned an ounce of what they have or were once in the same positions that others are in. If you can't understand how giving something back to others in need is important when they helped you when you were in need (WHOSE tax dollars paid for your education and military training? -- most likely the same who you now accuse of being lazy slobs mooching off of you) then I am afraid I can't explain it to you. The culture of avarice is embedded to deeply in your brains for you to have any feeling towards other human beings.
In other words, a typical American. Surprise, surprise. I think I know why you fit in so well there. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 4:42 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
wow. ur a bigger hypocrite than I thought. You take advantage of a government program that is paid for by other tax payers and free to you, but you strongly criticize others who are doing the same. In fact, it is because of that government program that you are able to get the jobs that you have today. You mentioned that you taught at MIT (if that's the truth). Well, the real truth is you wouldn't have landed the job without your two Master's degrees.
You have proven my point once again that trickle-down economics doesn't (and will never) work. Republicans give the wealthy tax breaks for the purpose of passing it on to the unintelligent poor. As you admitted, you will never pass on wealth that was handed to you.
It's amazing what greed will do to people once they see money. People like Freak have selective memories. They forget that they were helped, and that some other hard worker paid for that help. Once they get to the level that they can help others, they don't. And to make it more comical, they criticize the people who look for assistance.
::the winds of hypocricy are blowing strong in Freak's state::
Good point. But don't expect the privileged to listen. Their rationale is all based on greed. You cannot argue with that. | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-09, 4:52 pm |
| Freak's views are the mantra of the Republican party: greed, selfishness, and hypocricy. That's why I always vote for a Democrat. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 4:54 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
Freak's views are the mantra of the Republican party: greed, selfishness, and hypocricy. That's why I always vote for a Democrat.
As I recall, Clinton did not lack much in any of those qualities, either. | |
|
| Yawn... to bad you guys are not paying attention and are too bitter to actually try and read what others are writing.
Why so much bitterness is the question.
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
Freak's views are the mantra of the Republican party: greed, selfishness, and hypocricy.
Nope, my mantra is work hard and you will succeed. Work hard and you will be proud of what you achieve, no matter what level of achievement you reach. Work hard, and you will be able to look others in the eye, instead of living by the simple "I wish..." statement. I don't wish. I act. I suggest you try, sometime. And then maybe you won't be so fast to judge those who succeed beyond what you have. Sure, I am selfish. I have never helped a soul on this site, right? Run a poll on this site and see how many people think that my contribution here has been a selfish one. Truly a ridiculous statement, and a personal attack to boot, if I have ever seen one.
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
wow. ur a bigger hypocrite than I thought. You take advantage of a government program that is paid for by other tax payers and free to you, but you strongly criticize others who are doing the same. In fact, it is because of that government program that you are able to get the jobs that you have today.
Again, I reiterated several times that I am not in favour of cutting all help, but that I am in favor of better using what funds we have. Americans have the right to bear arms per their consitution. We have the right to free and equal education per ours. It is a difference in philosophy. And btw, my parents paid taxes and so did my grandparents, and so did I for that matter.
So that aid you talk about was also funded by us. Hypocrit? Look who's talking! You're a troll and nothing more. You still don't understand - or pretend that you don't - what the problem at hand is, here: it's not about aid of some kind. It's about what you do when you receive said help. Was I given the ability to go to college for free? Yes I was. Did I serve my country in war to repay that debt? Yes I did. Did I mention in my previous posts that I believed that those who receive aid should pay it back? Yes I did. How is that being a hypocrit? I put my actions where my mouth was and was deployed in Desert Storm to pay back my education. And by the way, once you get to college, you don't get a degree just for showing up. THere were 1100+ of us in first year in English. 4 years later, 35 of us had a Master's degree. 3 of thsoe 35 had a double Master's. So I was given help, and I made the most of it, which I believe is my duty. I wish more people on the dole would show the same sense of duty.
You have proven my point once again that trickle-down economics doesn't (and will never) work. Republicans give the wealthy tax breaks for the purpose of passing it on to the unintelligent poor. As you admitted, you will never pass on wealth that was handed to you.
Boy, are you thick. Republicans do not give the wealthy a tax break so that they can give their money to the poor. They gave them a tax break so that they can create jobs that in turn will provide more families with a decent income. I am a small business owner, and I have employees. More of a tax break would mean that I could create more jobs than I can currently afford to create. I would love nothing more than to do that - but in the current situation, I simply can't.
It's amazing what greed will do to people once they see money. People like Freak have selective memories. They forget that they were helped, and that some other hard worker paid for that help. Once they get to the level that they can help others, they don't. And to make it more comical, they criticize the people who look for assistance.
I don't have a selective memory. I know exactly whence I come from, and what I had to do to get to where I am. Believe me, I am all too aware of that journey. It's not all fun and games, I guarantee you that. I don't forget that I was helped - heck, I am the one who brought it up, moron - and my different endeavors have created good jobs for many people, which is the best way to give back if you ask me.
But needless to say, you are not interested in any of that. You're just trying to be a pr1ck and, I might add, you are doing a fine job at it too.
So go ahead and vote the way you want to vote, and cry when your hand is empty even when you leave it wide open when you beg. The more courageous among us will continue to refuse to act that way when they have another alternative, and they will continue to make good things happen for themselves and their loved ones.
And they will be proud of what they accomplished. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 5:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
Why so much bitterness is the question.
Nope, my mantra is work hard and you will succeed. Work hard and you will be proud of what you achieve, no matter what level of achievement you reach. Work hard, and you will be able to look others in the eye, instead of living by the simple "I wish..." statement. I don't wish. I act. I suggest you try, sometime. And then maybe you won't be so fast to judge those who succeed beyond what you have. Sure, I am selfish. I have never helped a soul on this site, right? Run a poll on this site and see how many people think that my contribution here has been a selfish one. Truly a ridiculous statement, and a personal attack to boot, if I have ever seen one.
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
wow. ur a bigger hypocrite than I thought. You take advantage of a government program that is paid for by other tax payers and free to you, but you strongly criticize others who are doing the same. In fact, it is because of that government program that you are able to get the jobs that you have today.
Again, I reiterated several times that I am not in favour of cutting all help, but that I am in favor of better using what funds we have. Americans have the right to bear arms per their consitution. We have the right to free and equal education per ours. It is a difference in philosophy. And btw, my parents paid taxes and so did my grandparents, and so did I for that matter.
So that aid you talk about was also funded by us. Hypocrit? Look who's talking! You're a troll and nothing more. You still don't understand - or pretend that you don't - what the problem at hand is, here: it's not about aid of some kind. It's about what you do when you receive said help. Was I given the ability to go to college for free? Yes I was. Did I serve my country in war to repay that debt? Yes I did. Did I mention in my previous posts that I believed that those who receive aid should pay it back? Yes I did. How is that being a hypocrit? I put my actions where my mouth was and was deployed in Desert Storm to pay back my education. And by the way, once you get to college, you don't get a degree just for showing up. THere were 1100+ of us in first year in English. 4 years later, 35 of us had a Master's degree. 3 of thsoe 35 had a double Master's. So I was given help, and I made the most of it, which I believe is my duty. I wish more people on the dole would show the same sense of duty.
So go ahead and vote the way you want to vote, and cry when your hand is empty even when you leave it wide open when you beg. The more courageous among us will continue to refuse to act that way when they have another alternative, and they will continue to make good things happen for themselves and their loved ones.
And they will be proud of what they accomplished.
You *sound* as though you condemn ALL who receive assistance as useless bums who are doing so just for the sake of an easy life. This is simply not true. As you have recieved help before temporarily, sometimes others need aid for a while as well. You seem to think that being nearly destitute for life by remaining on governmental aid is an attractive option and that is what baffles me.
Yes, work hard. Work hard and be proud of getting where you are. But when hard work does not seem to pay off and people like you seem to scoff at the very ones who have the most against them when they are trying their best to change that, you are not going to get very sympathetic responses. Make a point to distunguish those who don't want to work and those who are indeed working but who need the same kind of aid that you yourself received.
I am listening to what you are saying but the way you put everything makes you seem callous to everyone else's plight, despite you having received the same sort of help you now criticize. | |
| enforcer 2003-12-09, 5:30 pm |
| Confusion says:
Talk in the written form does not always convey all that it might should it be done vocally. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 5:31 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by enforcer
Confusion says:
Talk in the written form does not always convey all that it might should it be done vocally.
Shouldn't you have hijacked this thread by now? | |
| enforcer 2003-12-09, 5:43 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
Shouldn't you have hijacked this thread by now?
No I thought you were doing such a good job yourself.
I have thrown in a couple of hooks, but no one has taken the bait yet. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 5:46 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by enforcer
No I thought you were doing such a good job yourself.
I have thrown in a couple of hooks, but no one has taken the bait yet.
What was the topic anyway? | |
| enforcer 2003-12-09, 5:54 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
What was the topic anyway?
A small chocolate bar with peanuts and toffee in it. | |
| Papiya 2003-12-09, 5:55 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by enforcer
A small chocolate bar with peanuts and toffee in it.
Sounds pretty good. I think I'll have me one right now. | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-09, 6:50 pm |
| lmao
You obviously are feeling guilty about something because in your post you called me a troll, a moron, and a prick.
wow- now that's an intellegent response.
I called you a hypocrit because you are. You received government assistance. With that government assistance you were able to better your situation. Now that you are in a better situation, you criticize those seeking government assistance. That is the classic definition of a hypocrit. I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but that's what I said before. Truth is the hobgoblin of the Republican party.
As I also stated before, you would not have ANY part of what you have now if you didn't get the government assisted Master's degrees. That is what opened up all of those doors. If you don't see that, you're a very unintellegent person.
And now, those same people that you criticize are in the same situation that you were in. I'm sure you weren't griping about government assistance WHILE YOU WERE RECEIVING IT. Now that you don't need it, you criticize.
It's funny that you are judging ME through assumptions. I guess you assumed that I'm poor or receiving some kind of government assistance or uneducated.
Actually, I have the same background as you. I have multiple college degrees; I used to be an MCSE Instructor at a CTEC; and I left that job (making $75K) to start my own company. And I grew up dirt poor.
The only difference is I paid for my own college, and I don't mind paying taxes (and I live in the 2nd highest taxed state in the union) and I don't criticize those seeking help. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-12-09, 8:42 pm |
| The Chairman of the Democratic Party is a multi-millionaire who put up the money for the Whitewater Witch to buy her house in upstate NY so that she could pretend to be a New Yorker. The Dem Senators are richer than the Republican Senators. The top 10% of America in terms of wealth pay 50% of the income tax. To shift the tax burden further upon the rich would be to further create a de facto surfdom where these elitists pay for us all. We need the tax base to be broad-based. Great Britain almost collapsed under the weight of heavy taxation before The Great Lady took over.
And please stop all the crap. I live in NYC. I have seen with my own eyes the masses of people rushing to the mailbox. I have heard with my own ears the mantra "What is he going to give me" when people are talking about for whom they will vote. I personally know multi-generational families who have lived off the government. Anyone who thinks that all cultures are alike is more than welcome to visit my city and visit the various neighborhoods and see where the kids are studying and working and where they are in the streets making trouble. | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-09, 9:09 pm |
| Reagan created the economic disparity with a failed trickle-down economics plan. Once the rich got even richer, greed overtook many corporate executives to the point that extremely high salaries, bonuses, and perks became the expectation instead of the exception.
Clinton proved that you can tax the rich and the economy will prosper. He did a lot to narrow the economic gap and correct the wrongs of trickle-down economics. At the same time, businesses were growing and so were middle income salaries.
But do you REALLY think the richest Americans actually EARNED their money? Of course not. They make their millions by taking advantage of the people that work for them. That's why a lot of IT jobs went overseas. Americans demand a decent wage for their experience. Other countries can't be that demanding, so companies take advantage of the situation and the people. This in turn keeps expenses down and annual bonuses and executive raises and benefits extremely high.
Take Freak, for example. He said he would never pass on wealth that is handed to him to others. It is that type of mentality that will collapse a society.
::looking around noticing Freak doesn't want to play the politics game anymore:: | |
| Papiya 2003-12-10, 7:28 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
The Chairman of the Democratic Party is a multi-millionaire who put up the money for the Whitewater Witch to buy her house in upstate NY so that she could pretend to be a New Yorker. The Dem Senators are richer than the Republican Senators. The top 10% of America in terms of wealth pay 50% of the income tax. To shift the tax burden further upon the rich would be to further create a de facto surfdom where these elitists pay for us all. We need the tax base to be broad-based. Great Britain almost collapsed under the weight of heavy taxation before The Great Lady took over.
And please stop all the crap. I live in NYC. I have seen with my own eyes the masses of people rushing to the mailbox. I have heard with my own ears the mantra "What is he going to give me" when people are talking about for whom they will vote. I personally know multi-generational families who have lived off the government. Anyone who thinks that all cultures are alike is more than welcome to visit my city and visit the various neighborhoods and see where the kids are studying and working and where they are in the streets making trouble.
My problem with freak's statements was more with his attitude that "anyone who receives aid is a low-life bum who will make bad use of the money given to them". He did not state it in those terms, but it sounds as though he believes that everyone who receives aid is trying to be a freeloader.
Are there abuses of this system? Yes. And they need to be found and rooted out. But these programs are needed. If some people receive assistance for a limited amount of time, who is freak to decide that they will not use the opportunity any less well than he did? Welfare and social security checks do not make you rich . . . living the lifestyle of someone who depends solely on others for a paltry amount of money to sruvive is about as attractive to a normal person as becoming a Carthusian Monk would be.
You guys say that by giving assistance to those that need it we would create a whole class of society that depends on others for everything and who give nothing back. Let's apply this to freak's case, shall we? Suppose the French government decided to put a stop to free edcuation for all people because "it will create a class of career students who depend on the government for their welfare and who will never stop going to college so they can freeload off of the government"? Is this happeneing there? Did it have to Dave? Then why do you suppose that it will happen to others. If in fact, the system in France *does* work, why not try copying it. From what I saw of the American welfare system, there is little job training or education that takes place when assistance is given to families that need it. If that is the case, the very poor will be given very little incentive to get off of welfare since always asking "do you want fries with that" will probably not make them much better off in the long run. Giving them striclty temporary assistance in order for them to get back on their feet and become more productive members of society would *not* be money misspent. I recall freak suggesting that these people be required to do menial labour such as shoveling snow from his lawn in return for the assistance. WOW!!! What a great thing to have on your resume! Last job: Shovelled snow for freak. That is not helping them to become more independent. Freak, did you pay France back dollar for dollar for your degrees? Some of us here (me, for example) had to work our ways through college. Yet you receive this assistance and begrudge it to others. Tech Ranger, did you attend public schools? Have you paid for your education yet? EVERYONE receives public welfare. Everytime you go to school or drive on a road or get your trash picked up you receive it. If there is a "welfare culture" in some places, then you need to find a way to change it, and put an end to such abuse and find out how to make it more effective. But all I see here is someone saying, "it was good for me, but for everyone else, it won't work. I got aid and took it gladly, but others shouldn't get the same". And you wonder why this makes me mad??? Why, pray tell, if it was a help to you, should others not be given the same chances?
As for as the democratic vs. republican thing here, I very seriosuly doubt things have changed much in the last 30 years, regardless of who was president . . . sorry to tell you gusy this, but in most cases, a politician is a politican. Newsflash: THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. The rhetoric varies but the situation doesn't. So I see no real difference there. Sorry. | |
|
| I will not post in this thread anymore, because:
1. I have said what I had to say
2. I get judged by "It sounds like what you say is" as opposed to actual quotes
3. Some people in this thread are simply not worth responding to, since they are obviously in bad faith and just looking for a flame war.
It started as an interesting debate, anyway... | |
| Papiya 2003-12-10, 9:20 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
I will not post in this thread anymore, because:
1. I have said what I had to say
2. I get judged by "It sounds like what you say is" as opposed to actual quotes
3. Some people in this thread are simply not worth responding to, since they are obviously in bad faith and just looking for a flame war.
It started as an interesting debate, anyway...
A quote from you above: "Nope. Better managing what we tax people for would. Less wasted money for all those lazy bums who live off us would."
Exactly how are we supposed to take that? Apparently you were a lazy bum living off of others as well. But now that you are successful, it seems that things are different. Others do not deserve the chance that you had. If that does not sound as though you are dissing everyone who gets aid as lazy bums, then either I cannot understand English very well or you can't speak it very well. If that isn't what you meant, then speak English.
Nothing was done in bad faith here. I was only interested in fair play. Some people here aren't. | |
| curiousgeorge 2003-12-10, 12:10 pm |
| I think i'll start a thread about opinions on abortion next!
| |
| Papiya 2003-12-10, 12:18 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
I think i'll start a thread about opinions on abortion next!
The abortion of who? | |
| Teck Shark 2003-12-10, 12:59 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
A quote from you above: "Nope. Better managing what we tax people for would. Less wasted money for all those lazy bums who live off us would."
Exactly how are we supposed to take that? Apparently you were a lazy bum living off of others as well. But now that you are successful, it seems that things are different. Others do not deserve the chance that you had. If that does not sound as though you are dissing everyone who gets aid as lazy bums, then either I cannot understand English very well or you can't speak it very well. If that isn't what you meant, then speak English.
Nothing was done in bad faith here. I was only interested in fair play. Some people here aren't.
You were supposed to take it in context. Freak was referring to "all the lazy bums who live off of us." If this statement is understood properly, he's referring to all the lazy people living off us, as opposed to the people living off of us that aren't lazy and actively trying to make their live better. There is a difference! Otherwise he would have said that everyone that lives off of us are lazy bums.
This type of thing happens much too often on this forum. Sometimes people need to chill before they post & refrain from the "personal" attacks. I've always respected Freak & I can assure you he is not a lazy bum. He is successful because he works hard. I know many people that are just the opposite.
I also respect you and your opinions Papiya. From the sound of it you are definitely an amazing person to work as hard as you do & raise kids alone. That takes a special kind of person. I have the highest respect for you! And I'd be willing to bet that Freak does to. He certainly didn't mean that you were lazy. Again, things often are taken out of context when they are written rather than spoken personally. | |
| enforcer 2003-12-10, 1:00 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
I think i'll start a thread about opinions on abolition next!
Of what, the Monarchy, Parliament, Mini Skirts, Guns, Alcohol? | |
| Teck Shark 2003-12-10, 1:03 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by enforcer
Of what, the Monarchy, Parliament, Mini Skirts, Guns, Alcohol?
Certainly not Mini Skirts! | |
| Papiya 2003-12-10, 1:05 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Teck Shark
Certainly not Mini Skirts!
Certainly not indeed!!! | |
| Teck Shark 2003-12-10, 1:06 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
Certainly not indeed!!!
| |
| enforcer 2003-12-10, 1:10 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Teck Shark
You were supposed to take it in context. Freak was referring to "all the lazy bums who live off of us." If this statement is understo | | |