hahahahaha thats richTHC_Snake_ wrote:
Speech should be free, but rascism should cost you.
Search
Search results: 420 found, showing up to 50
Good area. Last place I lived in GA was in Norcross, right off Burns a couple miles from 85. Used to go up to Buford all the time for landscape work at my buddy's family's land. I miss the south.
where 'bouts in Atlanta are you from? I spent 16 years growing up in gwinnett, north & south fulton, and cobb counties
Freedom isn't free.Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
I'ma coward because I dont like killing? Go join the military if you've got balls.
DID I SAY I HAD A PROBLEM WITH ADF? They probably know they dont have enough men to defend Aus anyway.
I've known a few of the RAAF and RAN guys that were/are in the officer exchange program. Very capable and dedicated individuals.
Grossly untrue.the_heart_attack wrote:
the movie team america was a perfect example of what america thinks.
You do not represent America.Flavius Aetius wrote:
Truly, America has earned the right to stamp around the world. Why should I give a damn what some other person in another country want me to do? I am an American. I live How I live, and I am at the top. You may claim your weapons are better, that may be the case, but we have good weapons in numbers. We have a force that is unstoppable. Everyone is always bashing us because we are at the top. If our president wants us to go fight, then we'll go fight. If we don't like it, we'll choose a new guy. I don't care if you hate me, because I know, that if it came down to it, my army could kick your ass. Get over yourselfs. And Greenie_Beazinie your comment on why we were in Vietnam, well, last time I checked you were there to. Maybe we should stop saving the world.
Untrue. Snipers in every military of every nation have always followed those doctrines. THe sniper's role is to provide behind-enemy-lines information and to disrupt morale and communications by eliminating high profile and crucial targets.Marconius wrote:
And yet, FeloniousMonk, our forces aren't fighting American snipers...so the whole American ideaology of a "proper" sniper's role in combat kind of goes out the window.
Insurgents are not stupid and they're not untrained. They understand the concepts of war just as well as anyone else and any good sniper is going to follow the same goals. Wounding is absolutely USELESS for a sniper. If you want to wound, send in a platoon. Snipers are one shot, one kill.
Exactly. Good snipers will scout and track their prey for days at a time, sometimes even weeks. Makes no point to waste all that time as well as a bullet for a mere wound.whittsend wrote:
Anyway, more simply than that: Snipers are not an efficient way to cause casualties. They take much too long to make a kill (patience is as necessary a skill for snipers as marksmanship), and so they don't make many kills over time.
Two things that are not directly related since - oh yeah! - very little oil actually comes from Iraq. In fact, the US has been purchasing and trucking in refined oil into Iraq so that the people there can pay about 50 cents per gallons.the_heart_attack wrote:
i would have left out the petrol comment, greenie is right petrol in aus has gone up nearly 50 percent since america invaded iraq.
Kiss my ass, emo coward. You go tell that to someone in the ADF and see if they don't kick the living shit out of you. I thought Australians were supposed to have balls.Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
Rednecks, poor people and hotheads join the military.
Many people have this misconception that everyone who joins the military will take the life of another. The majority of people who have served, in all countries all over the world, have never taken a life. Most US armed forces never see actual combat. The reason being that there are as many non-combatant support and administrative positions in all branches as there are combat oriented ones.Berserk_Vampire wrote:
I've always wondered this apart seeing all the fictional crap in movies and on tv no matter how real or fake they want to make it look i've always wondered this and if this happens alot.
Now say you want to join the army it can be for any reason and depending the person you are you can see a big strong looking mean guy in the army and you think hes a killer then you see some nerdy guy with glasses joining the army right.
Ok but my question is all these types of people and wanting to join the army for any of there reasons do all people know and understand that they will have to kill some one at one point? and do they have no problem with this? I mean since you're fighting in a war its ok to kill so you just do it right?
But what my real question is, has there ever been accidents or any problems like some one joining the army and after all there training there out in the battlefield and fighting and they just couldnt kill a person? Like that couldnt and just froze and ended up getting killed and there team mates? Do you know what i mean?
Its like a guy joins the army goes threw basic training then hes out fighting then theres a terrorist in front of him and he spots him before the terrorist does but he cant shoot he cant kill the person hes to scared then boom he dies.
Does this kind of thing happen alot or at all? or does every person joining the army confident they can kill some one and have no problem with it?
Cause not every one could kill a person even if they have a right too in war cause alot of people tell themself just like im sure you do "Yeah if i was in the army i'd kill every one lolz" Then you chicken out and get you're stomach blown out from fear.
Just wondering i've never heard about anything like this in stories or anything so if this kind of thing does happen i guess they keep it quiet?
The only branch of the US armed forces that prepares every recruit for combat is the Marine Corps. Marines all recieve the same basic infantry training because of the Corps doctrine that states every Marine is a rifleman first. The reason being that in the case of massive depletion of personnel the USMC could pull cooks, mechanics, secretaries, and computer techs, stick a rifle in their hands and put them on the front line. No other branch can do this, not even the Army.
Regardless, not everyone will see combat and of those that do not all will actually fire on others. Freezing up does happen. Not frequently - which the whole point of the combat training - but it does happen. Sometimes the guy freezing up gets lucky and is saved by his brothers in arms or by sheer stupidity on the part of the enemy. Sometimes the freezing up results in the death of the guy and possibly his teammates. It happens. Not often but it does happen.
What kids joining the military need to be reminded of is not that they could potentially be asked to kill (because the many wouldn't even qualify for combat) but that they could potentially die. That's the more important aspect of it and it bothers me when I see recruiters telling these kids all about the college bonuses and the on-base theatres and gyms, the free healthcare yada yada yada but neglect to remind them that "Hey by the way, you're in the military and that means your chances of death will undoubtedly increase."
You're wrong. Snipers are taught to kill, not wound.BladeRunner wrote:
Not true. If I kill a soldier, the enemy army is down 1 man. If I wound him, It takes at least 1 other to carry him...then the surgeons, money, resources etc.
It's more of a drain on your enemy to wound than kill....the only time this isn't true is when you can completely destroy your enemy...but that ain't gonna happen.
Not for a sniper. A wounding shot is completely detrimental to a sniper's goal.Pubic wrote:
Now I know I've got no military service under my belt at all, and thus my opinion might not carry the same weight as someone who does, but wouldn't you call a sniper "good" based on whether or not he achieved his objective, rather than saying "hes good because he kills more" or "hes good because he wounds more"? Surely theres a place for both wounding and killing?
Those of you that keep trying to claim that wounding is better than killing are either not understanding the role of a sniper or are just using their Battlefield 2 experience to form an opinion. Snipers do not go into battle with the troops and fire off a couple dozen rounds while the enemy is charging. They remain hidden, their primary role is to scout - hence the reason the Marine Corps, which produces the best overall sniper material the world has ever seen, calls them Scout/Snipers. In a secondary role they are tasked with eliminating crucial targets such as commanding officers, communications officers, and equipment if possible. The highest ranking officers are almost always the primary targets because a dead lieutenant disrupts the chain of command. A shot coming out of nowhere and killing your boss is going to freak you out regardless of how much of a badass you think you are. A shot that simply wounds him is only going to piss everyone off.
There is a reason that the motto of the American sniper is "ONE SHOT, ONE KILL, NO REMORSE, I DECIDE".
uh, way offKocrachon wrote:
Its not justified because a Police for SWAT officer is suppose to either A) Shoot the Gun out of hte hand or B) Incompacitate (not kill) The target. Swat deploys 2 snipers from diffrent angles, giving at least one of them a chance to get a non-lethal or semi-lethal (50/50 chance to live).
Police snipers are taught to kill instantly. In fact they're specifically taught to aim for the parts of the brain that control motor functions to reduce the chance of a hostage or innocent bystander being hurt by the target. They are almost never told to attempt to shoot a weapon out of someone's hand; that's an incredibly stupid tactic in just about any situation. If a police sniper is ordered to shoot it's only because the target poses an imminent threat to someone's life. When that's the case non-lethal is not an option.
I find it strange to place the life of a man willing to slit the throat of a young child over the life of that young child. What if it came down to either killing him or letting him continue? A homicidal maniac that will without a doubt murder you, go back to raping your family member, and then kill her as well...given the choice would you still refuse to kill?Nehil wrote:
I don't think is justified. Call me crazy but I don't. Well I would not just stand back, but I sure as hell wouldn't kill the guy.FeloniousMonk wrote:
When a police sniper shoots a suspect in the head to keep him from drawing a knife across a 14 year old's throat, it's justified. If a man was in the process of raping a member of your family you would stand back and do nothing?
When a police sniper shoots a suspect in the head to keep him from drawing a knife across a 14 year old's throat, it's justified. If a man was in the process of raping a member of your family you would stand back and do nothing?Nehil wrote:
After reading some serious posts, I think that some of you are right, he misses a lot of shots and the clips are probably not from the same guy/guys. Just put together as propaganda.
Still some of you want to find the best sniper in all history... and you make it to a sort of competition. You know they acutally kill people to, even if they are from the USA, Russia or Finland. Don't make something glorious out of killing, becuse when someone kills outside the army they should get the death penalty? You still kill in the army, I believe that killing someone is never justified, no matter what you work as.
A murder is a murder.
now that's a little extremeKocrachon wrote:
You guys are no better than terrorist for posting it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 … 24,00.html
read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_HathcockMacMan wrote:
First off, this is a rumor and not true, I have just returned from Afghanistan and Iraq and I can say that the Insurgents lack the ability to aim. The gentlement who said he was over in Iraq I agree with, that any news like this would have spread like wild fire over there. Second if this fictional person were to be true, he would not be the best sniper in the world, everyone knows a man going by the nickname of "White Feather" in Vietnam has the record for overall confirmed kills, he also has a book out called "White Feather" he is by far the best sniper ever. Thank and good night on this WOW post.
though his record for the longest kill was broken by a Canadian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Perry
Maybe.Nehil wrote:
I don't think so, to cause maximum damage you should only wound a soldier so that maybe 1 or 2 other have to take care of him. Simple military tactics, from what I've heard. Just like like all explosive traps.*ToRRo*cT| wrote:
[dude this is bad quality sniping.
For starters it's still uncomfirmed as to whether or not there is a single sniper or a whole group of independant ones that just decided to copy the original. Either way, some of the tactics have been counter to typical military strategy. Namely the fact that most of his/their targets have been low level. Don't take that the wrong way; each life is as important as the next but good snipers make a point of using their one shot to take out the highest ranking commanders, communications officers, or other such personnel that are instrumental to operations.
Maybe it's one guy, maybe it's not. Maybe he or they have been captured, maybe not. Either way, shooting only once is about the smartest thing any sniper can do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 … 24,00.html
Chilling article about the issue.
Ah, not quite. Fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they simply require large sums of money in taxes to get the proper license. So, as usual, the more money you have the more freedom you have. That doesn't jive with me. The irony is that large fully automatic weapons are already pretty expensive and thus are rarely ever purchased/stolen by criminals and their use in crimes is almost non-existant. Regulation on something that doesn't need to be regulated; the only real threat that fully automatic weapons pose is to the government itself.B.Schuss wrote:
well, the government is already regulating private gun ownership in the US ( full automatics are illegal, I believe, and fellons are not allowed to own guns ),
Also, you're right that felons are not allowed to own guns but there are some that disagree with that. There are many who believe that once someone is released from prison and have in essence "paid their debt" to society that all rights should be returned to them, including the right to defend themselves. I, on the other hand, simply believe that violent criminals need to remain in prison for life. I don't want violent felons with guns but to be honest embezzlement along with many white collar crimes as well as many drug related nonviolent crimes are considered felonies.
No one is advocating rights without responsibility. To use a classic example: we all have the right to free speech but yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a crime (unless it's actually on fire) because it's an intentional threat to the safety of the people.so it ain't a question if the 2nd amendment is scrutinized, it is only a question to what extent that should happen.
The NRA is considered by many gun owners to be against their goals. Depends on who you ask, though.The NRA is obviously lobbying to make sure that private gun ownership is not any more regulated, while others demand that private gun ownership should be abolished at all. Looking back at the history of the US, I doubt that will happen. Guns are so deeply imbedded in your culture, I am afraid they are here to stay.
You're right, our history is strongly connected to guns. Our nation exists because people used their guns to stand up to an oppressive government. That doesn't mean we're the only ones that are tied to them. Guns are here to stay for everyone, not just the US.
There are 500 million guns in the world. These devices are relatively simple machines, easy to manufacture and maintain. With proper care a handgun can outlive multiple owners. The majority of guns in the world are made by European companies: H&K, Walther, GLOCK, FN, Berreta, etc. You cannot make them go away with laws because the only way to do so would be to ban the knowledge of internal combustion. They can't be uninvented any more than one can unfry an egg.
Yes it is. Our right to own weapons is what ensures that a tyrannical government will never have the chance to take over. That's the whole point.B.Schuss wrote:
The argument back then was "if we keep a militia with wepaons comparable to those of a national army, we can be sure the government is kept in check"
Is that argument still valid today ? Of course it isn't.
Elected representatives are not perfect. We have the power to change the laws but our Constitution ensures that the ability to do that will never be taken away.Times have changed. The balance of power between the people and the government has been carefully constructed during the last 200+ years. Moreover, today, it is a democratically elected government, compared to a monarchy back in the 18th century.
Therefore, today the people in the US actually have the power to change the laws which govern them, through their elected representatives.
In your opinion.They don't need a militia as a safeguard. that's just paranoia.
You forget that protection against a tyranical government is but one reason to keep and bear arms. The other is personal protection.That's why I believe that the right to keep and bare arms, while being perfectly valid under the circumstances back then, can be questioned today.
The Constitution can be changed but the Bill of Rights must always remain. That's what prevents the government from taking away rights that are inherent to human existence. If the second is taken away then there will be nothing to stop the others from being taken away. The second protects the first, third, fourth, fifth, etc.Wether it should be abolished at all is something which the US government ( being the elected representatives of the people ) has to decide.
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." - Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821
hahaha that's awesomeJack_Danger wrote:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d5/Sgt_Smash/w00t.jpg
First of all I think 30k is a more accurate number. But what you neglect to take into account is that the majority of those people killed by guns are criminals being killed by their potential victims while in the commission of a crime.RavenDB wrote:
No wonder 50,000 people are killed by guns in USA each year...KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
Well, thank God you do not have the final say on this issue. Already we have given in on this by saying OK just Automatic weapons for people with a lic. They meant just what it says we as citizens have the right to keep and bare firearms. Thank god for the NRA. As soon as they take or try to take one weapon then all will someday be taken just like in other countries. The right is mine and all Americans and I hope it remains that way. SUPPORT NRA!!!!
I grew up in Atlanta but I currently live in Chicago.cpt.fass1 wrote:
FeloniousMonk where are you from?
ya like dags?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Proper phucked.
I too, am partial to periwinkle blue. Have I made myself clear, lads?
indeed and I really do appreciate y'all discussing this with me. I always enjoy hearing dissenting opinionsAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Well Felonius, all I'm going to say is that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I realize that, I was saying that if you want to give half, a quarter, 10%, or 90% - whatever amount you wish - then it should be your choice. The same goes for me; be it half or half of a percent, I am the only one that should ever be allowed to decide where the money that I worked for goes.Losati wrote:
Half? Please. The tax money that you pay that goes to welfare is much, much less than half your total income.
And that's not my problem. If the welfare system was eliminated I would be very willing to give to charity. I've done so many, many times in the past and the charities I've given to would have recieved more if I hadn't already been forced to give money to the welfare system.A) There would not be enough money donated. People would make the choice and the choice would be "No, thanks." Do you think that if you had, say, 5-10% of your current tax given back to you that you'd turn around and donate that much to charity? Or even half of it? And what do you think about other people? What would they do?
What other people do is not my responsibility. What I do is. This is my problem with society; people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Instead those of us who work harder are required to pick up the slack.
Charities already have the infrastructure necessary to do these kinds of things. What do SSNs and income tax reports have to do with this? There doesn't need to be a national register of donations; last year I donated a car to Kars4Kids. I gave them the car and the title and recieved a form (forgot the designation) to file with my taxes. I get the deduction. Simple as that. No additional "infrastructure" needs to be created.B) I truly don't think they'd be able to handle the full need of the people who would need help. The infrastructure within the government is already there in many ways. Such as SSNs, income tax reports, etc etc. That sort of structure would have to be created for these charities to do the work. And managed after that. And there's no way that could be handled by volunteers. Which means what? That's right: $$$
Untrue. There are enough jobs for every able bodied man and woman in this country. When people are willing to work jobs are created. There are always things to do, things to build, things to invent, things to store, things to transport, etc etc. There is no shortage of jobs, only a shortage of people who are willing to do the shitty jobs.Her case is pretty moot, because we live together. But finding a "second" job is not necessarily an option for all people. Or a new job. There could be children to raise, relatives to take care of, etc (and let's not talk about how they "shouldn't have had them". The kids exist, we can't go back and time and slip a condom on the dude. It's a done deal.) And there is no way, and I mean no way, that everyone in this country could have a job, or even two jobs, that could sufficiently fund their needs. It's just impossible. It's endemic to our capitalist way of life.
Really? Are people currently "dropped from the roles"? For what reason? How often?I know what you meant. But there would be a definite problem with people getting "dropped from the roles" of such if private charity handled the situation; people who truly needed the help.
Put as few people as possible in the chain of custody. Having something in control of a government goes against that very concept.You know, I see two issues here:
1) What is the best way to ensure that money given to the poor actually helps the poor.
Nope. If you choose to do so that's very admirable. But no one should ever have to.2) Should I (Losati) have to give money to help someone else out.
That's fine but if I decide that buying a 7800GTX (if you're gonna go, go all out ) is more important to me than helping someone out, why is that anyone else's business. On multiple occassions I've left restaurants with leftovers that I hand to the first homeless person I see. It's not a lot but it feeds them for a night. Might make a difference, might not. But it's my choice; I could've taken that food home and had some good eatin' the next day but I decided that I'd rather help someone out. On the other hand what if every time you went to a restaurant you were forced to order an additional side of rice to hand to the homeless guy outside?As to the first: Hey, that's totally open to debate and study. And when all is said and done, there might be a "best" strategy. Who knows?. IMO, the government handling the situation makes the biggest positive impact, though it has definite flaws. (Kinda like democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else).
As to the latter issue, that one to me is no debate (and I think you agree with me on that).
My dad always used to tell me (and still does, unfortunately) "First things first." Well what comes first? Me buying myself a plasma TV or 7800GT (i'm an nVidia guy )? Or ensuring that the least of us can have what they need? And I know that my feeling that my personal obligation should be everyone's obligation sounds somewhat tyrannical (and socialist!). But I think this way we, collectively, can put together enough support to make a larger difference than if we make such a thing a choice. And, very importantly, at a lot cheaper of an individual contribution.
Why? Just because you're willing to do something why should someone else who makes more money have to do the same. Now as far as general taxes not relating to welfare go, I somewhat agree. Overall those who make more should pay more but never a higher percentage. If I pay 20% of 60k in taxes and you pay 20% ofSo am I willing to pay $100 a year to help out the poor? Yeah. $500? Sure, man. * And should someone making over twice my income have to pay more? Hell yeah.
80k in taxes then someone who makes 600k should only have to pay 20% in taxes just as someone who makes 12k should have to pay 20%.
People with more money should not be penalized for making more money.
True but the point of an economy is not to make sure that people can succeed. Success is the responsibility of the individual, not the group. I have no responsibility to make sure you succeed any more than you have the responsibility to make sure that I do.Is it "fair", economically speaking? Fuck no. That fuckin' government is stealin' even more of my money.
But no economic theory, including capitalism, can guarantee that every hard working, motivated individual can succeed.
eh, I wanted to go home but I have to lock up so I'm stuck here for at least half an hour more...and I just bought a cheap logitech headset so I can finally start using teamspeak with my roommateYeah man, same to you. Time for me to jet as well
I don't want to qualify because the same amount of money going into SSI would serve me better in a private investment, both as security against a disabling situation and retirement.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Such as that may be, if you didn't have the policy, you would qualify. Even with the policy you would still qualify for retirement benefits.
Untrue. Home schooled children are equally as sociable as kids in public school because the majority of home schooling parents have their children interact in other forms. They still enroll them in sports and other such activities that kids participate in out of school, they still play with their friends in their neighborhoods, and home schooled kids are able to interact with kids of other ages instead of being forced to stick with kids their own ages. If anything home schooled kids have more opportunities to learn social lessons because they're not restricted to the same groups of people of the same age all the time. What they experience is far closer to real life than kids in public schools.Irrelevant. The slumping public school system has nothing to with the idea behind the reason for doing it. Not everyone has the income to afford private schools, and home schooling has its own problems. It's been shown that home schooled children tend to have poorer social skills because of their lack of interaction with their peers.
Private schools are not affordable to everyone but they would certainly be affordable to the majority of families in the country if so much tax money wasn't going toward a wasteful public school system. Unless you live below the poverty level you can afford to send a child to private school with the tax breaks provided. The cost is damn near identical.
Besides, private schooling and home schooling have been shown, time after time, to provide better education. Home schooled kids on average do far better on all standardized tests at all levels of primary education.
Those private charities that have shown to be in violation of their duties ought to be shut down and the people responsible tossed in prison. The bottom line remains that MY money is mine. I worked for it. I busted my ass to earn my paycheck and the only things that I should ever have to put my money toward are things that I benefit from.No, no it's not the answer. You erroniously assume that everyone receiving welfare is unwilling to do for themselves, and that is not the case. Yes, there are those cases, but that is not the majority of those receiving assistance. You also seem to think that tax-exempt private charities don't have their own set of corruption problems. Ever bother to look at who got payments from the 9/11 fund? They have found numerous cases where businesses and individuals were able to skirt the system and get payments from this, even though they were in no way affected. What's to say that private charities could handle the load?
Won't happen. I've been unemployed before and I've seen just how many jobs there are in the world. The unemployment rate in this country is due to laziness, not a lack of jobs. I've been unemployed and living off savings and had a myriad of choices from mopping floors to delivering newspapers. In all cases all I had to do was be willing to work. Simple as that.It's sad that there seem to be so many people like you. You always look at the faults and extreme cases as being the standard of the way a program works. If you get your wish, I would hope that just once in your life you find yourself, through no fault of your own, unable to find a job, or find one making what you did. You've burned through any savings/investments that you owned, sold your home, and crammed your family into the cheapest shithole you could find, then wonder whether you should pay the electric bill, gas bill, or buy food, and thend have some one tell you that you're not worth helping because your a lazy fuck that won't take care of yourself.
I also plan ahead. I was taught from a very young age to prepare for the worst and as it stands if I lost my job I could survive for months on savings. I don't really make that much money, I don't have much disposable income. But I know how to prioritize and plan. The fact that others don't is not my fault.
Sorry but your situation can't happen to me. I know how to work. I've done office work and manual labor and when the shit truly hits the fan I'm willing to take just about any job to survive. I've performed some really nasty jobs in a pinch but the important thing is that I have always and will always support myself. I have never relied on government assistance for anything. I've taken no student loans, no SSI benefits, no welfare checks, nothing. All this despite the fact that at 17 I was living by myself while enrolled full time in school and started out with quite literally nothing to my name but the clothes on my back.
You mean people that know what it's like to start with nothing and then earn their way to financial stability?It's sad that there seem to be so many people like you.
Heartless or not it should still be my choice. If you want to spend half of your income feeding someone else's child, more power to ya. But I don't want my money going to feed someone else unless I decide it goes there.Losati wrote:
Let them starve? For their mother's mistakes? Heartless, is all I can say. And the crime does affect you, me, and everyone else in this country, whether you like it or not. Which means, from a financial standpoint, you will end up paying for it, one way or another.
Yes they would. Private charities have been handling the needs of the poor for ages; the same amount of money could go into private charities as into public welfare but at least this way it would be voluntary.They wouldn't be able to handle the need. Not to mention the fact that they could dissappear without warning. Also, you have problems like what happened after the tsunami: Public interest/visibility. After the tsunami, the red cross and other organizations had problems getting donations for other causes because everyone had exhausted the disposable income they wanted to give to charities for tsunami relief. Having a dedicated, and (relatively) set budget for such things as welfare has its advantages.
Well with all due respect if she was living beyond her means then she has no one to blame but herself. Did she have a TV? A car? A second job? Instead of relying on the state for food stamps she could've had the option to find a different job or a second one.Nope. People in even a slightly worse situation than my girlfriend should get food stamps. But with me here, we have enough for both. Apart, she wouldn't have enough for her. (Well, perhaps this year she'll be good enough, but that's beside the point.)
The only exception is if she is physically or mentally disabled and simply cannot work as much as necessary to support herself.
Efficiency means that more of the money donated would get to those poor as opposed to being spent on bureaucratic nonesense. I do understand your point but the bottom line is that I should not have to support someone else unless I make the choice to do so.I don't know how many, do you? And as for 'efficiency': That is no god to worship. Efficiency would, in effect, mean you drop people who aren't worth the effort. And when you start makin' decisions like that, people get fucked. And not just fucked in the sense that some small percentage of tax that you pay is lost in wasteful spending. This is fucked as in "life-and-death" fucked. And that is no way to handle the goal of welfare.
it's kosher, I have to leave for the dayNote: gotta not edit this much as I want as the boss is comin' around soon. So I apologize it's not as polished as it should be.
Thanks for debating with me.
not at allLosati wrote:
LOL, I hope that is a joke.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
All welfare recipients should be sterilized.
Save a kid from poverty... abort it.
Also,I don't think Fellonious would want to pay for either of those.
certainlywannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Is the red cross private?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross
According to Swiss law, the ICRC is defined as a private association.
All payments to the ICRC are voluntary and are received as donations based on two types of appeals issued by the Committee: an annual Headquarters Appeal to cover its internal costs and Emergency Appeals for its individual missions.
If my money is going to support someone that can't work I'd rather it go to supporting solely the child as opposed to mother, father, and child.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
There is no dispute that welfare needs to be worked over, but the fact of the matter is that if we do away with it, the state is going to take the kids from the mother, and we are going to end up paying anyway.
Very wrong. SSI is in trouble because when it was started you had multiple people supporting one retiree. These days you have one worker supporting multiple retirees. That is the main reason SSI is in trouble and why I will never see a penny.SSI is only in trouble because we continue to allow the government to borrow money from SSI for other uses.
Nope, if I become disabled I don't see a penny from the government because I have an insurance policy that would cover me. Had I not been paying into SSI for years my insurance policy would be even better and I'd have less to worry about. Instead I'd be forced to rely on SSI checks because the money was already taken from me. Had I kept that money I could've made better decisions on its' investment than the government can.If you were to become disabled right now, you would qualify for some level of support from SSI.
Every single one of those roads is available for me to use. If I wanted to drive on every public road in the United States I'd be allowed to (it wouldn't be possible but I'd have no one legally stopping me from doing so). On the other hand to qualify for welfare I'd have to sacrifice my income. If I pay into welfare why can't I just collect a check now despite my current income?And something else to keep in mind. You say you don't mind your taxes being used for roads because you drive on them. States get some federal money for such infrastructure projects. That means that your tax dollars may go to build roads that you never even knew existed, let alone drive on them. Why do they do it? They realize that at a state/country/city only level there would be insufficient funds to build such infrastructure. To spread some of this money around helps other states by making sure that inter/intra state commerce can grow. Same thing for education. States get federal tax dollars for schools. This redistribution of wealth is done because it is considered in the best interest of everyone to have a citizenry that is as educated as possible.
As to the schools...public education is a joke. Private schooling and home schooling should be encouraged to stem the degridation of education in America. Federal money for schools has been slowly lowering the quality of education, not improving it.
Yes it is. Eliminate welfare and allow private charities to take care of those who don't take care of themselves.Yes, welfare has problems, and I don't recall anyone here saying anything to contrary, but your idea of completely eliminating it is no more the answer than to continue to let it run as it is now.
She shouldn't have the kids in the first place if she can't afford them. Even if she only had two kids it's still her responsibility to feed them, not mine. I had nothing to do with the birth of her children and thus I should have zero financial responsibility. If they end up on the streets or in jail it's her fault. If I choose to donate to a charity that would help feed those children, as I would certainly do if the welfare system didn't exist, then that's my choice because it's my money. But my hard work should never be taken from me because someone else is unable or unwilling to work.Losati wrote:
There's a lot of, what shall i call it, principle(?) there. But I think it doesn't take into account a lot of real-life issues. First, if she didn't get that money, her kids would very well not have sufficient food to eat. Now she might go get a job, but it's doubtful she'd be able to make enough to feed said eight kids. And go to school to get a better job? Not with eight kids at home. And even if she gets the job, her kids could very well end up at home alone, leading to not only a child endangerment issue, but also a potential crime "threat".
I'd prefer it if all charity was truly charity. Private, non-profit, regulated organizations accepting donations (which would count dollar for dollar in personal tax breaks for those donating) and using that to support people who don't support themselves. But it should always be a choice, a willing donation.So what do you prefer? Odds are some of your tax dollars (or pennies?) are going to pay for some portion of that woman's life no matter what the solution.
That's because the food stamp system is ridiculously organized. I've seen TV commercials encouraging people to apply for food stamps. That's utterly ridiculous; for starters if you can't feed your kids then you sure as fuck should not have a TV, let alone wasting time watching it instead of working.Though, of course, I think your image of who these people are is, in general, wrong. My girlfriend qualified for food stamps this year (though she didn't take them, as she has me) yet has a job.
Your girlfiend qualified yet has a job. Does that not seem wrong to you?
Good for your friend for devoting his/her time to a good cause but that still doesn't mean that I should have to pay for their meals unless I choose to. In fact I'd be very happy to do so in order to show my appreciation for their sacrifice but it should be a willing contribution, not a forced deduction.And a friend of mine in Boston DID take food stamps last year, as working for AmeriCorps doesn't pay enough to live.
But how many people do sit at home all day being lazy and collecting welfare checks when they're supposed to be working? The system doesn't work because it's government run. Put it in the hands of private organizations that need to retain efficiency or suffer closure and you'll have much better results. Nearly anything the government does is handled better by private entities. The government has little incentive to do good work because they won't have to worry about losing contracts or going bankrupt.And though they both might have problems keeping their legs closed (much to my happiness in the first case), they don't sit at home all day watching soaps.
Nor have 8 kids, thank god.
There are certain levels of it that are required. I don't mind my tax money going to build roads because I use those roads. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for the CDC because I've seen first hand how crucial that organization is. On the other hand I strongly oppose having to pay into social security when I will never see a penny of that money nor will I ever see a penny of welfare or government cheese. It's one thing to spend money on infrastructure, defense, health issues, etc and a completely different one for my money to support a mother of eight that can't close her fucking legs and watches soaps all day long instead of fucking working.
I was playing Ghost Town last night and my squad leader flew the helo up so high that when I spawned on him and jumped out I was able to 'chute for one minute and fourteen seconds.Sparkysrevenge wrote:
how the fuck can u para for 1 min
who is stupid?
it says AIRPLANE
Socialism is a very loaded word. There are varying degrees of it but none of which that I want to live under. I have no misconception about it being evil or even that "communism" is evil. But to me they are both antithetical to freedom and liberty because they make one a technical slave of the state. The state should always serve the people, not the other way around. If others want to live under those ideals, fine. But I sure as hell won't.
I'm not saying that those who favor wealth redistribution are all socialists but it is a core principle of socialism.
I'm not saying that those who favor wealth redistribution are all socialists but it is a core principle of socialism.
How was justice served? Has it been proven that Koresh abused a single child? Has it been proven that he commited a single, solitary crime besides owning those weapons? For the record, none of the weapons he owned are considered "illegal". Not a single damn one; I can go out today and place an order for anything and everything he had in there but I'd have to pay thousands upon thousands in taxes. That's all Koresh was guilty of, not paying the ridiculous tax on those weapons.Ogopogo15 wrote:
I felt that Justice was served, and I consider myself to be a moderate. I believe the reason the Government let it be shown on TV was it was a quiet reminder to any nutjobs that this is what we are going to do to you. Although that they burned to deaths wasnt quite what I expected.
Shall I remind you people again that until 2002 the ATF was a TAX COLLECTION AGENCY. Not law enforcement officers, tax collectors. Tax collectors with assault weapons.
It most certainly does encompass what you said. The rest of your post is meaningless drivel compared to the ridiculous assertation that there's "nothing we can do about it". The whole point of our system of government is that we the people decide how things are supposed to be.DakkonBlackblade wrote:
Please don't dilute a 72 word post into 5 words and act like that encompasses what I said. Of the people means the majority, not the oneguys opinion. So if most people want to pay for it, YOU pay for it. There is no socialism here, you will pay for that child at some point in its life cycle. Before it is born, to raise it, or as it commits crimes against society, there is no way around that no matter what form of government your country holds to. You never did answer to the fact that no matter what you would view as your 'right' the fact remains that you must pay for a small fraction of that child/abortion no matter what.
Of the people does not mean the majority, it means the majority opinion while in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. Most people don't want to pay for it, that's the fucking point. People do nothing but bitch and complain about taxes, people on welfare, unemployment, yada yada yada but the majority doesn't hit the voting booth. I've voted in every local, state, and national election since the day I turned 18. The majority isn't deciding jack shit because the majority is too fucking lazy and apathetic to participate in running the government.
No socialism? Ridiculous. The very idea of taking money from one person and giving it to someone else is the embodiment of socialism. There is most certainly a way around the problem if not for the people who don't take the time to stand up for something and instead just satisfy themselves with the status quo.
It's attitudes like that which destroy the principles this nation was founded on. Y'know that whole "of the people, by the people, for the people" concept? Yeah it's supposed to remind us that government only holds power because WE decide to recognize its' authority. To think that government policy like socialist wealth distribution is unchangable only helps to keep those problems from ever going away.but you have no choice.
jesus christwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Natural selection is survival of the fittest, moron.FeloniousMonk wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittestwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Think of it as survival of the fittest. It would prove Darwin's theory.
You fail in school and you will fail in life.
It would have absolutely nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory. Read a book or two.
Read the link I posted. Then read the information about natural selection. They are not the same concept. One is a viable scientific idea, the other is a catch phrase. I'm sure you'll figure out which is which.
Violates the Constitution.dankassasin42o wrote:
I think those who collect welfare should be deported. Illegal or not. They cant afford to live here, they can live else where. U have 15 beaners living in 1 house all collecting welfare and buying new cars and shit they dont deserve b'cuz their not working for it.
Violates the Constitution.birdman69 wrote:
People on welfare should join the army. They will pay you, clothe you and put a roof over your head. Most of all, these people will actually be contributing something to their country. Instead of just taking something.
Anyone agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittestwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Think of it as survival of the fittest. It would prove Darwin's theory.
You fail in school and you will fail in life.
It would have absolutely nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory. Read a book or two.
The problem is that our government is so ridiculously bloated that it requires that much money. Without all the waste in our government we wouldn't need as many taxes in the first place. Just about everything the government does can be handled better by private industry. The federal government's only responsibilites are to regulate interstate commerce, have a standing military for the protection of the nation, and to ensure that no state or municipality violate the Bill of Rights.to maintain sufficient income to the government.
Um, I never advocated forcing women to carry to term. Simply that I don't want to pay for it. At all. Regardless if she has an abortion or not, it's not my responsibility and not a penny of my money should go to that woman for any reason unless I decide to give it to her.
I would have no problem with supporting those who don't work if the money wasn't coming out of my pocket. Charity should be handled by private, non-profit organizations. There should be zero public wealth redistribution, especially to those who don't work. Welfare is the worst aspect of socialism and it makes me sick to hear about generations of families that are so used to living on welfare that they'll have kids just to get a bigger check.
No, I don't want to pay for that child at all. If I had no part in making it, it's not my responsibility. Not a penny of my money should ever go to feed, clothe, or shelter that child unless I decide to do so myself. There are many people out there willing to adopt; the problem is that most of the time the mothers will change their minds after the birth or screw the kids up so much in the first couple years that adoption becomes a much bigger challenge.DakkonBlackblade wrote:
As an aside, you don't want government funds paying for an abortion but you are fine paying for 18 years of caring for that child? If she can't pay for an abortion today you think she can care for a newborn in 9 months? Adoption? Well until (IF!) the kid gets adopted the government has to pay for their wellbeing.
It'd be nice if we could require IQ tests and financial statements before being allowed to raise a child but that would be pretty anti-freedom and all so it wouldn't jive.
www.google.comwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So when does the brain develop?
I am not a neonatal physician.
No, you are considered clinically dead if there is no pulse and breathing has stopped. One can be clinically dead yet still have brain activity.atlvolunteer wrote:
You are considered clinically dead if there is no brain activity.
wtfKnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
You can have sex and take precaustions like birth control, knowing you partners cycle, ect. but that is part of being responsible.
The one and only 100% reliable form of birth control is abstinence. Knowing the gir's cycle is EXTREMELY unreliable for most people and the pill, even combined with condoms, cannot be relied upon. I've known a family of five siblings, every single one of them were born despite the mother having been on the pill.
I wasn't trying to answer the heart question. I don't know the answer off the top of my head but I'm sure thirty seconds on Google will provide you with the answer. My point is that the heart itself does not matter in the argument because it is nothing more than a blood pump. The brain is the only part of the human body that should be brought into question when deciding when life begins.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Trying to answer the heart question. And you still haven't answered it. So, if a heart is beating and there is brain activity then someone is considered alive? The heart has a lot if it is used to determine when someone has died. For instance, when someone was shot to death what is used to determine 'time of death'?
The heart is not used to determine when someone has died, that's my point. Back in the day, before defibs and CPR, heart stoppage was considered death. These days the heart and breathing can both be restarted; only the brain's death can be used to truly determine it.
When a person is killed in a crime, be it with a gun or whatever else, time of death is usually estimated via liver temperature by the coroner.
Trying what? Why did you bring up the heart? It has nothing to do with a person's consciousness.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I was asking dumbshit. Thanks for trying...
Also, when is one considered dead?
Moment of death itself is still hotly contested, as we saw with the Terri Shiavo case. Clinical death (stoppage of the heart and breathing) can be reversed but brain death is considered pretty damn permanent.
What does the heart have to do with it? The brain is where the mind is; the heart is just a pump, nothing more.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Here's what i was pondering the other day. Good Morning America showed a baby that was premature and said he was 1 month old. But he was born 6.5 months into the pregnancy. A normal term child is 0 when he/she is born after 9 months. Why would coming out at 6.5 months make him 0 but a normal term 0 at 9 months? It doesn't make any sense to say he/she is a baby when born at 9 months and premature baby at 6.5 but at 6.5 months you can kill 'it' and not be killing a baby?? Someone please explain.
When does the heart form in a fetus?
True but my point stands; if the woman makes the decision all on her own then should the guy still be held financially responsible once it's born?Losati wrote:
A voice, I agree. I don't think that, in a healthy relationship, the girl should just run off and not talk to the guy about it. In the perfect world, they would always dicuss.
But I don't think that voice needs any sort of legal status. That could lead to even more problems being introduced to the situation.
You make a good point. I just don't like the feminist concept of "one penis, no vote" on the abortion issue. Some women seem to think that because they carry the child that they're more important to the child's life than the father. That's wrong; both parents are equally as important, especially considering the mother will more often than not have to rely on the father's work to keep her fed and sheltered during that pregnancy.This is the issue with spousal notification/consultation laws. If the woman has reason to fear for her life or health at the hands of her spouse/boyfriend/lover/whatever, she should be able to make the decision on her own. Now, the question then comes in: how does one prove that? Well, you take it to court right? Or you have some sort of counselor. Now, honestly, do we think that a woman who is very scared, upset, and about to make a really freakin' hard decision is going to be all gung-ho and, in effect, able to make an 'argument' for her case? Personally, I think not. Not in all cases, that's for sure.
I hesitate when people talk about the man's role. Honestly, yes, to me, it's the preferred way for them to talk about it. But that's not always something that can happen. So for that reason, I don't like the idea of a legal 'status' for the man.
Those are crimes. In cases like that the criminal would have no say in the matter. At all.Marconius wrote:
That's all fine and good for a couple. It'd be both of your decisions.
Yet what about the cases of rape and incest?
Somewhat but could you refresh my memory?Remember that 13-year old girl that was caught between her wishes and the State of Florida?
Sex is not an accident. If she slept with her asshole boyfriend and then got pregnant she has no one to blame but herself. The asshole boyfriend is of course equally as responsible but unless he raped her she can't skirt it and say that she "accidentally" got pregnant.How about unfortunate women who have encounters with asshole boyfriends who have an "accident" in the bedroom and then never return their calls?
Why shouldn't asshole boyfriend have a say in the matter? It's just as much his kid as it is hers and if she brings it to term then he will be financially responsible for it.In those cases, it's not a decision that anyone other than the pregnant woman should make.
Ok?The context of that quote was dealing with Legislation on the issue, not whether or not you would personally have a say in it if you got your GF/Wife pregnant. Plus, making abortion illegal will do as much good as a "suicide barrier" on the Golden Gate bridge. They'll always find another way if they cannot safely get an abortion (i.e., coat hangers).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4500245.stm, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7718218/
I see. That's a fairly shady legal argument, however, because as I mentioned the anti-abortion camp views the fetus as a person and thus has the same rights to life and privacy as the mother.It wasn't a matter of getting the point of their side, it was speculation on what a pro-choicer could legally use against them if they decide that she no longer holds rights over a collection of cells in her womb. It's just a twist on a theme.
I assume you're being sarcastic...?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Yeah but we have more important things to do such as bring democracy to the rest of the world, the edumication system isn't important in this country cause we always need civil servants.
No bearing? If she brings the child to term then I will most certainly have a financial responsibility for it. No bearing? It would be MY child as much as hers. No offense intended but I guess if you've never had kids you wouldn't understand.Felonious even though 23 of those chromosomes are your responsibility really has no bearing on if she's going to keep it, or even tell you about it. Now most unwanted births I believe are from either younger couples who are just dating and can't afford to raise a child. Or slutty girls who just really don't care cause they really have no future to look forward to.
The man has to do nothing for nine months? I'm sorry but have you ever dealt with a pregnant woman for her entire term? While I will never diminish the incredible struggle they go through it's not a walk in the park for the guy. The man having a say in the outcome does not make the woman a slave to his will; in fact if the man has no say in the argument then it makes him a slave to her will. Since it is the woman's body it is ultimately her choice, in my opinion, but the man should most certainly have a voice in the matter. It's his child, too.
My apologies, I misunderstood you.
My only issue with the situation is that all of those things Koresh is accused of doing have never been proven.
My only issue with the situation is that all of those things Koresh is accused of doing have never been proven.
Bingo. Just like crime and unemployment, all three of these social issues could be fixed with sheer and simple EDUCATION and PARENTING.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
2. Use education to fight the source of the problem. Abortion is like cutting off your arm for a minor infection that could have been treated with antibiotics. We need to make sure that woman and the poor are getting a better education so that the number of times on demand aboriton is used becomes minimized.
Bullshit. If a girl is pregnant with my child then 23 of those chromosomes are my responsibility. I have as much right to have an opinion as anyone else. It's a tricky situation because it's her body and chances are I'll defer to her decision but to think that I should have zero say simply because the kids in her and not me is fucking ridiculous. By that line of thought if she decides to have the child then I shouldn't be held responsible for it because hey, I didn't carry it to term.Marconius wrote:
I heard this on the radio a while ago, and if there are any females in the audience, I tend to think that most of them would agree:
"If you can't ovulate, then shut the hell up about abortion."
So I guess you're ignoring the multitude of female Senators and Representatives that strongly oppose abortion?The rights concerning a woman's uterus is up to the woman and the woman alone. It shouldn't be up to a bunch of old pederasts arguing in the House and Senate.
You don't seem to get the point of the anti-abortion argument. They're arguing that since a person is created at conception then this person has a legal right to life as much as any other individual under the laws of this country.Another interesting point is that if right-to-lifers want to keep pushing that a Person is created at conception, then I think that a case of invasion of privacy could be argued, as they basically want to control the woman's uterus and contents, thus denying her of her rights and personal possession of her uterus/embryotic cells.