They're all great words lowing, the kind of words you might see on a motivational poster, but I'm afraid words and concepts aren't enough to help some people out of their rut. Are you saying that a single parent (whose partner perhaps ran off, was killed in a road accident or died through illness) with a couple of kids who has to work every hour God sends in order to pay the bills, keep the family fed and make sure the bank doesn't reclaim the house, has only their own lack of ambition and drive to blame for being in that rut? People end up in situations that are not entirely their own fault lowing and they might have all the drive, desire and ambition in the world but lack the requisite scenario in which to put these qualities to good use.lowing wrote:
How about bridging it through ambition drive, motivation, education reponsibility?,.......Neh, who ever heard of such non-sense. It is easier to to just redistribute someone elses work, ambition, drive, movtivation education, responsibility.
Do you have free college in the US? I'm sorry, I never realised that... your system is to be commended in that case. Or do you mean that all you have to do to get a college education is get yourself locked up?lowing wrote:
Anyone that wants education can get it Braddock, hell even prosoners can get a college education.
Who said they were? You said poor people didn't pay tax and that is a blatant lie.lowing wrote:
Maybe you can tell me how a person with no job is paying income taxes, I really would like to know.
I already said 1000 times, I do not support the bailout. What Ido support is letting borrowers and the lenders get what they have coming to them...DickTurquoise wrote:
So spending $850 billion bailing out Wall Street wasn't "spreading the wealth around"?lowing wrote:
"spread the wealth around" http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
This is the reason not to vote for Obama. What he wants to do is have govt. control over your money. When has it become the govts. job to seize money for the purpose of "spreading it around". Folks this is socialist/communist ideology and it goes against everything the US was meant to be.
Which is freedom to succeed, not guaranteed to succeed. Equal opportunity, not equal results.
and now we have this gallop poll which says only 13% of "national adults" are in favor of doing what Obama wants to do, yet, with the economy as the #1 concern for the voters, Obama is still leading in the polls. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Ameri … onomy.aspx
Stupidity and a lack of quality informed liberal voters comes to mind. Maybe issues and not race or good looks,or celebrity, should be what motivates voters after all, this year.
We've already gone down this road. The government has made it quite clear who it really works for, and it's neither you nor me. Both candidates supported this "spreading of wealth" to the ultra-wealthy.
At least things like socialized healthcare help the average citizen. But again, we wouldn't want to "punish success" through taxing the rich more. We'd rather "reward failure" with bailouts.
1. What mechanism? Ummmmmmmmmm Laws? EPA, OSHA, etc are all in place to handle those very issues.Spark wrote:
Then, I suppose, the question is, what mechanism do you propose be put in place to ensure workers rights are protected? I submit this rather well-known case here of a case where unions can be a powerful force for what I see as the positive - the protection of rights, not the wheedling of pay rises and a strike-happy attitude.lowing wrote:
I did, where? Unions? Oh yeah, I already told ya how I felt about unions, they are corrupt, they are a for profit organization and they are as big business as any other, they only difference between them and a company, is they take the money you earn from a company who pays you. Then they pin you against your company in orderto make you feel like you can live without their protection from the big bad company. Ya know, the very company YOU applied to and ASKED for a job.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Oh, I forgot that you just start threads to spout your unified theory on society and government. That's retarded.
I think you missed a couple talking points.
As for welfare, I think you've missed our point. In my view, certain social security measures are absolutely critical for the continuing stability and growth of an economy. Take an broad example: migrant workers following WWII that migrated en masse to Australia and the US. These people - and there is a huge number of them - want nothing more than to get a good job and settle down in a nice, peaceful, stable country. But you can't just move and expect things will grow by themselves - this is where what you call 'handouts' are very important. You would need some money to get off the ground in the first place and make a basic living - i.e. food, accommodation - or it would need to be provided directly. You would need skill training. You would need language training. And this would almost all have to be government provided because these migrant workers, though they have the will, they do not have the resources to do it themselves.
Just one example.
1. Cry me a river Braddock, the fact is you ca nwhat if me to death with 200,000 sob stories. It does not change the fact that I ME MYSELF, have my own problems as well, and I shouild not be forced t osolve MINE as well as YOURS. Am I sorry he knocked up some chick, yeah that sucks, but tell me again why I sahould have to pay for it. Oh yeah I forgot, because in liberalland, we all SHARE our problems.Braddock wrote:
They're all great words lowing, the kind of words you might see on a motivational poster, but I'm afraid words and concepts aren't enough to help some people out of their rut. Are you saying that a single parent (whose partner perhaps ran off, was killed in a road accident or died through illness) with a couple of kids who has to work every hour God sends in order to pay the bills, keep the family fed and make sure the bank doesn't reclaim the house, has only their own lack of ambition and drive to blame for being in that rut? People end up in situations that are not entirely their own fault lowing and they might have all the drive, desire and ambition in the world but lack the requisite scenario in which to put these qualities to good use.lowing wrote:
How about bridging it through ambition drive, motivation, education reponsibility?,.......Neh, who ever heard of such non-sense. It is easier to to just redistribute someone elses work, ambition, drive, movtivation education, responsibility.
I have a friend who was a keen outdoorsman, he had studied all manner of outdoor educational courses and perhaps one day may have started his own outdoor education centre or adventure centre. He is a well-educated and philosophical kind of guy but he had the misfortune of getting his girlfriend pregnant and at his level of the industry the weekly wage of someone working in an OEC would not have been enough to pay all the bills that come with a new child so he took a job doing the night shift in a factory in his hometown. He probably doesn't pay as much as some other people in taxes every week but for someone to come along and say that the only reason he might be struggling financially is his own lack of drive, ambition on educational responsibility is downright insulting. I'd much rather see someone like my friend get a break via tax reforms than some fat fuck in a $5'000 dollar suit who gets a bonus for running the financial system into the ground.Do you have free college in the US? I'm sorry, I never realised that... your system is to be commended in that case. Or do you mean that all you have to do to get a college education is get yourself locked up?lowing wrote:
Anyone that wants education can get it Braddock, hell even prosoners can get a college education.Who said they were? You said poor people didn't pay tax and that is a blatant lie.lowing wrote:
Maybe you can tell me how a person with no job is paying income taxes, I really would like to know.
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-22 07:22:43)
How about you cry me a river lowing because it looks like your days of "I've got mine, don't worry about his" Capitalism are coming to an end. Even if Obama doesn't win, the bailout plan is already an admission of the error of cutthroat Capitalism's ways. What you talk about in principle is all well and good but you continually gloss over the fact that Obama's proposals seek to ask for more from those who have grown fat off of the system while returning more to those who contribute to the same system but get way less out of it... nothing wrong with that in my book. He is not, as you like to convince yourself, writing a blank cheque for freeloaders.lowing wrote:
1. Cry me a river Braddock, the fact is you ca nwhat if me to death with 200,000 sob stories. It does not change the fact that I ME MYSELF, have my own problems as well, and I shouild not be forced t osolve MINE as well as YOURS. Am I sorry he knocked up some chick, yeah that sucks, but tell me again why I sahould have to pay for it. Oh yeah I forgot, because in liberalland, we all SHARE our problems.
Care to be a bit more specific? For example explain to me how a single parent on a modest income can afford to send their child to college if they have a mortgage, bills to pay and other mouths in the family to feed?lowing wrote:
2. there are all kinds of govt. grants ESPOECIALLY if you are nonwhite, so yeah there is free education out there.
Relativity lowing, that's my problem. They may contribute less but they also take home way less and they feel the pinch of the tax man in a very real and often painful way. Many professional workers' bank balances on the other hand are just abstract figures on a screen that never have a huge effect on their day to day survival, just as long their card works whenever they're at the ATM. They may very well feel the pinch of the taxman but not in the same way as a guy working minimum wage.lowing wrote:
3. So if they have a job then they are paying minimal taxes, and if you don't you are not paying shit. So what is your problem?
1. He ain't elected yet. Secondly you did not answer my question. Why is everyone elses personal problems supposed to be MY problem? WHy should MY family do without what I have earned for them to take care of another family that has not done as much? Tell me how it is my govts. job to dictate to me how generous I am supposed to be? Tell me why you think it is my govts. job to cap my earnings because they think I have earned too much and I need to give WHAT THEY DECIDE away. You sure do like having govt. in control of your life Braddock, I do not.Braddock wrote:
How about you cry me a river lowing because it looks like your days of "I've got mine, don't worry about his" Capitalism are coming to an end. Even if Obama doesn't win, the bailout plan is already an admission of the error of cutthroat Capitalism's ways. What you talk about in principle is all well and good but you continually gloss over the fact that Obama's proposals seek to ask for more from those who have grown fat off of the system while returning more to those who contribute to the same system but get way less out of it... nothing wrong with that in my book. He is not, as you like to convince yourself, writing a blank cheque for freeloaders.lowing wrote:
1. Cry me a river Braddock, the fact is you ca nwhat if me to death with 200,000 sob stories. It does not change the fact that I ME MYSELF, have my own problems as well, and I shouild not be forced t osolve MINE as well as YOURS. Am I sorry he knocked up some chick, yeah that sucks, but tell me again why I sahould have to pay for it. Oh yeah I forgot, because in liberalland, we all SHARE our problems.Care to be a bit more specific? For example explain to me how a single parent on a modest income can afford to send their child to college if they have a mortgage, bills to pay and other mouths in the family to feed?lowing wrote:
2. there are all kinds of govt. grants ESPOECIALLY if you are nonwhite, so yeah there is free education out there.
Are you also saying that you have grants that are handed out based on skin colour as opposed to means-testing? Because that would be fucked up.Relativity lowing, that's my problem. They may contribute less but they also take home way less and they feel the pinch of the tax man in a very real and often painful way. Many professional workers' bank balances on the other hand are just abstract figures on a screen that never have a huge effect on their day to day survival, just as long their card works whenever they're at the ATM. They may very well feel the pinch of the taxman but not in the same way as a guy working minimum wage.lowing wrote:
3. So if they have a job then they are paying minimal taxes, and if you don't you are not paying shit. So what is your problem?
If society has provided a scenario in which you have been able to prosper then you should be willing to give something back to that society. Bankers and huge companies get all manner of tax breaks and tax incentives and get fat on the profits of these, then many of them have the cheek to turn around and complain about tax hikes. Even when they fuck things up they get bailed out by tax payers money. Fuck em I say.
In Ireland we had a new tax introduced in our recent budget of 1% from every tax payers gross income, over and above the rest of your regular taxes. That 1% is a drop in the ocean for a rich professional (although it is actually more money in tax) but for a minimum wage worker it means certain groceries might not be affordable when they are doing their weekly shop.
Thankfully our Government backtracked on the issue and exempted minimum-wagers from the new tax.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-22 10:28:21)
You always extrapolate things to ridiculous extremes lowing. Who is talking about capping wages? What are you and your family having taken off you for the sake of others, do you earn over 250'000 a year? What I favour is a tax system that looks out for the little guy who is trying hard to get by instead of rewarding irresponsible bankers and CEO's for their recklessness and profiteering.lowing wrote:
1. He ain't elected yet. Secondly you did not answer my question. Why is everyone elses personal problems supposed to be MY problem? WHy should MY family do without what I have earned for them to take care of another family that has not done as much? Tell me how it is my govts. job to dictate to me how generous I am supposed to be? Tell me why you think it is my govts. job to cap my earnings because they think I have earned too much and I need to give WHAT THEY DECIDE away. You sure do like having govt. in control of your life Braddock, I do not.
Make a great living doing what lowing? Driving a bus? Flipping burgers? To make good money at a trade requires training and an apprenticeship, which are also not easy for everyone to attain.lowing wrote:
2. Again that sucks, not my problem. Maybe your kid can not go to college, that does not mean he can not make a great living and attend school later. Oh but wait, then I wouldn't be paying for it then would I? Yeah forget that.
That is so retarded... and you complain about how Socialist countries do things?lowing wrote:
http://www.usagovernmentgrants.org/grants_for_minorities.html what were you saying about being fucked up? Doesn't the family in picture look like they need a govt. grant?
As simple as that? Just turn in the hairnet and send off that application to NASA, yeah? You are utterly preposterous sometimes. This line of argument brings us back around to access to education so you are tripping up over your own arguments on this one.lowing wrote:
3. Then do something that pays better than minimum wage. We are all products of our decisions, I should not be burdoned with YOUR fucked up decisions.
Bullshit lowing, absolute bullshit. To claim that the child of a Roma Gypsy refugee in New York has the same chance of success in life as the child of a rich New York businessman or that the son of an African American factory worker in Alabama has the same chance of success in life as the son of a white Alabama State Judge is utterly laughable. Life does not deal equal hands to everyone and good Government can, to a certain extent, address some of these unfair imbalances. McCain's ideology just wants the rich get richer while the poor get poorer... and I think that's why you like him to be honest.lowing wrote:
Society has provided a scenerio in which you can prosper. It is called opportunity, with little govt. interference to stiffle your progress. Unless Obama gets elected.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-10-22 11:23:03)
Well, we agree on that then, but... the fact that we have already bailed them out means we should get something in return. I say we nationalize the bastards. If I'm picking up their tab for their debts, they better give me some fucking stock options.lowing wrote:
I already said 1000 times, I do not support the bailout. What Ido support is letting borrowers and the lenders get what they have coming to them...Dick
But it's still picking who wins and looses out of the banks. Another bank could go under, and I don't think a bailout will be headed it's way.Turquoise wrote:
Well, we agree on that then, but... the fact that we have already bailed them out means we should get something in return. I say we nationalize the bastards. If I'm picking up their tab for their debts, they better give me some fucking stock options.lowing wrote:
I already said 1000 times, I do not support the bailout. What Ido support is letting borrowers and the lenders get what they have coming to them...Dick
1. I am not exaggerating shit Braddock, YOU used your friend with a problem as an example as to WHO needs help. I simply am stating a fact that HIS problem should not be MY problem, as well as MY problems should not be YOUR problems. Life is not fair this is true, some have to work harder than others to make it this is also true, but it is not the govts. jobd to curtail the progress of one, to drag along another.Braddock wrote:
You always extrapolate things to ridiculous extremes lowing. Who is talking about capping wages? What are you and your family having taken off you for the sake of others, do you earn over 250'000 a year? What I favour is a tax system that looks out for the little guy who is trying hard to get by instead of rewarding irresponsible bankers and CEO's for their recklessness and profiteering.lowing wrote:
1. He ain't elected yet. Secondly you did not answer my question. Why is everyone elses personal problems supposed to be MY problem? WHy should MY family do without what I have earned for them to take care of another family that has not done as much? Tell me how it is my govts. job to dictate to me how generous I am supposed to be? Tell me why you think it is my govts. job to cap my earnings because they think I have earned too much and I need to give WHAT THEY DECIDE away. You sure do like having govt. in control of your life Braddock, I do not.Make a great living doing what lowing? Driving a bus? Flipping burgers? To make good money at a trade requires training and an apprenticeship, which are also not easy for everyone to attain.lowing wrote:
2. Again that sucks, not my problem. Maybe your kid can not go to college, that does not mean he can not make a great living and attend school later. Oh but wait, then I wouldn't be paying for it then would I? Yeah forget that.That is so retarded... and you complain about how Socialist countries do things?lowing wrote:
http://www.usagovernmentgrants.org/grants_for_minorities.html what were you saying about being fucked up? Doesn't the family in picture look like they need a govt. grant?As simple as that? Just turn in the hairnet and send off that application to NASA, yeah? You are utterly preposterous sometimes. This line of argument brings us back around to access to education so you are tripping up over your own arguments on this one.lowing wrote:
3. Then do something that pays better than minimum wage. We are all products of our decisions, I should not be burdoned with YOUR fucked up decisions.Bullshit lowing, absolute bullshit. To claim that the child of a Roma Gypsy refugee in New York has the same chance of success in life as the child of a rich New York businessman or that the son of an African American factory worker in Alabama has the same chance of success in life as the son of a white Alabama State Judge is utterly laughable. Life does not deal equal hands to everyone and good Government can, to a certain extent, address some of these unfair imbalances. McCain's ideology just wants the rich get richer while the poor get poorer... and I think that's why you like him to be honest.lowing wrote:
Society has provided a scenerio in which you can prosper. It is called opportunity, with little govt. interference to stiffle your progress. Unless Obama gets elected.
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-23 05:03:29)
We should get something back. How about MY money? I have a family to support as well. I find it mind boggling that people will defend tht I need to work twice as hard for people that do not work at all. God I hate liberalsTurquoise wrote:
Well, we agree on that then, but... the fact that we have already bailed them out means we should get something in return. I say we nationalize the bastards. If I'm picking up their tab for their debts, they better give me some fucking stock options.lowing wrote:
I already said 1000 times, I do not support the bailout. What Ido support is letting borrowers and the lenders get what they have coming to them...Dick
I'm single, but I work hard. Most of us do.lowing wrote:
We should get something back. How about MY money? I have a family to support as well. I find it mind boggling that people will defend tht I need to work twice as hard for people that do not work at all. God I hate liberalsTurquoise wrote:
Well, we agree on that then, but... the fact that we have already bailed them out means we should get something in return. I say we nationalize the bastards. If I'm picking up their tab for their debts, they better give me some fucking stock options.lowing wrote:
I already said 1000 times, I do not support the bailout. What Ido support is letting borrowers and the lenders get what they have coming to them...Dick
I thought you said life was fair, no? We all have the exact same chances in life and all that noise? Also, you never clarified who was advocating capping of wages or what specifically you or your family were having to give up for the sake of others... I just presumed you didn't earn 250'000 a year but I may be wrong? What Obama proposes to do is take a little more from those that have been allowed to get fat off the system and give it to those that feed the system at a lower level... it's a lot more palatable of an idea than what advocates of the bail-out deal would call a 'trickle down' solution whereby more money is thrown at the people at the top.lowing wrote:
I am not exaggerating shit Braddock, YOU used your firend with a problem as an example as to WHO needs help. I simple am stating a fact that HIS problem should not be MY problem as well as MY problems should not be YOUR problems. Life is not fair this is true, some have to work harder than others to make this is also true, but it is not the govts. jobs to curtail the progress of one to drag along another.Braddock wrote:
You always extrapolate things to ridiculous extremes lowing. Who is talking about capping wages? What are you and your family having taken off you for the sake of others, do you earn over 250'000 a year? What I favour is a tax system that looks out for the little guy who is trying hard to get by instead of rewarding irresponsible bankers and CEO's for their recklessness and profiteering.
Firstly, I wasn't calling you retarded lowing I was saying that a policy of giving out grants on the grounds of skin colour as opposed to means-testing is retarded... utterly retarded! And your assertion that school (and by school I presume you mean college or university because that's what I was talking about) is "obtainable" is simply an over simplification of things. Sure there may be grants for people in really disadvantaged areas or people with non-white skin (lolorama at that dumbass system!) but what about the people in the middle? Like Joe the plumber form Main St. USA who makes just enough to pay the bills and the mortgage but falls outside the categories that qualifies him for special grants? His kids will have to do without or get a great big loan to go through college... oh but wait the credit crisis has fucked up that option now!lowing wrote:
School is obtainable Braddock, I do not care if you acknowledge it or not with your endless string of excuses. Retarded? What. I am retarded because I linked this site and you are somehow gunna tell me it is biased, or wrong. Or are you saying it is retarded that race decides grants? I do not complain about how YOU live Braddock, I am complaining that I do not want YOUR life.Braddock wrote:
Make a great living doing what lowing? Driving a bus? Flipping burgers? To make good money at a trade requires training and an apprenticeship, which are also not easy for everyone to attain.
Proven? You just said it was "obtainable" and that was it. Laziness is the reason for everyone's failures isn't it lowing? That's why my parents never went to college, because they were bone idle lazy... it had nothing to do with the economic climate of the time or the amount of money their families had.lowing wrote:
The line of argument about access to education has been proven, the only thing you are not defending is the individual decision to persue it. I guess you have an excuse for that as well, that should also be my problem.Braddock wrote:
As simple as that? Just turn in the hairnet and send off that application to NASA, yeah? You are utterly preposterous sometimes. This line of argument brings us back around to access to education so you are tripping up over your own arguments on this one.
Maybe socialists believe that if society were restructured to be more socialist there would be far less need for charity to exist in the first place.. that's the general idea lowing. Charity can often be a nice way to sooth a capitalist's guilt at night, while simultaneously making use of handy tax breaks at the same time!lowing wrote:
Sorry to hear there are people in this country who struggle, it does not detract from the fact that our country is not a socialist country and our society is not set up with the mindset that we all share problems, we are a collective, we are not individuals. The truth is, conservatives are way more giving than a socialist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02916.html It would appear that socialists love to talk about the unfortunate but are less likely to do anything about it. That apparently is my job.Braddock wrote:
Bullshit lowing, absolute bullshit. To claim that the child of a Roma Gypsy refugee in New York has the same chance of success in life as the child of a rich New York businessman or that the son of an African American factory worker in Alabama has the same chance of success in life as the son of a white Alabama State Judge is utterly laughable. Life does not deal equal hands to everyone and good Government can, to a certain extent, address some of these unfair imbalances. McCain's ideology just wants the rich get richer while the poor get poorer... and I think that's why you like him to be honest.
Opportunity for education? Oh yeah, you said it was "obtainable"... and everyone qualifies for a grant right?lowing wrote:
So we have established, the opportunity for education, (beyond the free High School already provided) with govt. grants and we have established that our country is in no way short of charity and generosity. We just do not have our govt. dictating to us or forcing us. It would appear the only thing left to discuss is the individual and his desire to succeed.
1. Nope, never said life was fair, it just isn't the govts. job to make it that way. In this case it would appear that 250,000 is the magic number. Make more than that and expect the govt. to step in and take it. It can't be too hard to figure out Braddock, if you take more money from me, you are taking money from my family, this forces me to work harder or longer to make up for it. People did not cheat anyone or steal from the poor. I guess this is what you consider earning for yourself, because EARNING isn't something that is apparently in your vocabulary. Nothing has been taken from the poor, quite frankly, they don't have anything to take. It is absurd for you to tell me that anyone that has money obviously took it from the poor. I am not for the bail-out Braddock, tell it to someone who is.Braddock wrote:
I thought you said life was fair, no? We all have the exact same chances in life and all that noise? Also, you never clarified who was advocating capping of wages or what specifically you or your family were having to give up for the sake of others... I just presumed you didn't earn 250'000 a year but I may be wrong? What Obama proposes to do is take a little more from those that have been allowed to get fat off the system and give it to those that feed the system at a lower level... it's a lot more palatable of an idea than what advocates of the bail-out deal would call a 'trickle down' solution whereby more money is thrown at the people at the top.lowing wrote:
I am not exaggerating shit Braddock, YOU used your firend with a problem as an example as to WHO needs help. I simple am stating a fact that HIS problem should not be MY problem as well as MY problems should not be YOUR problems. Life is not fair this is true, some have to work harder than others to make this is also true, but it is not the govts. jobs to curtail the progress of one to drag along another.Braddock wrote:
You always extrapolate things to ridiculous extremes lowing. Who is talking about capping wages? What are you and your family having taken off you for the sake of others, do you earn over 250'000 a year? What I favour is a tax system that looks out for the little guy who is trying hard to get by instead of rewarding irresponsible bankers and CEO's for their recklessness and profiteering.Firstly, I wasn't calling you retarded lowing I was saying that a policy of giving out grants on the grounds of skin colour as opposed to means-testing is retarded... utterly retarded! And your assertion that school (and by school I presume you mean college or university because that's what I was talking about) is "obtainable" is simply an over simplification of things. Sure there may be grants for people in really disadvantaged areas or people with non-white skin (lolorama at that dumbass system!) but what about the people in the middle? Like Joe the plumber form Main St. USA who makes just enough to pay the bills and the mortgage but falls outside the categories that qualifies him for special grants? His kids will have to do without or get a great big loan to go through college... oh but wait the credit crisis has fucked up that option now!lowing wrote:
School is obtainable Braddock, I do not care if you acknowledge it or not with your endless string of excuses. Retarded? What. I am retarded because I linked this site and you are somehow gunna tell me it is biased, or wrong. Or are you saying it is retarded that race decides grants? I do not complain about how YOU live Braddock, I am complaining that I do not want YOUR life.Braddock wrote:
Make a great living doing what lowing? Driving a bus? Flipping burgers? To make good money at a trade requires training and an apprenticeship, which are also not easy for everyone to attain.
What America needs, in my opinion as an outsider, is a system that will bridge the gap between rich and poor by focusing not on the super-rich Exon Mobil's of this world but on the middle class workers who make America what it is............. sorry slipped into Obama mode there.Proven? You just said it was "obtainable" and that was it. Laziness is the reason for everyone's failures isn't it lowing? That's why my parents never went to college, because they were bone idle lazy... it had nothing to do with the economic climate of the time or the amount of money their families had.lowing wrote:
The line of argument about access to education has been proven, the only thing you are not defending is the individual decision to persue it. I guess you have an excuse for that as well, that should also be my problem.Braddock wrote:
As simple as that? Just turn in the hairnet and send off that application to NASA, yeah? You are utterly preposterous sometimes. This line of argument brings us back around to access to education so you are tripping up over your own arguments on this one.Maybe socialists believe that if society were restructured to be more socialist there would be far less need for charity to exist in the first place.. that's the general idea lowing. Charity can often be a nice way to sooth a capitalist's guilt at night, while simultaneously making use of handy tax breaks at the same time!lowing wrote:
Sorry to hear there are people in this country who struggle, it does not detract from the fact that our country is not a socialist country and our society is not set up with the mindset that we all share problems, we are a collective, we are not individuals. The truth is, conservatives are way more giving than a socialist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02916.html It would appear that socialists love to talk about the unfortunate but are less likely to do anything about it. That apparently is my job.Braddock wrote:
Bullshit lowing, absolute bullshit. To claim that the child of a Roma Gypsy refugee in New York has the same chance of success in life as the child of a rich New York businessman or that the son of an African American factory worker in Alabama has the same chance of success in life as the son of a white Alabama State Judge is utterly laughable. Life does not deal equal hands to everyone and good Government can, to a certain extent, address some of these unfair imbalances. McCain's ideology just wants the rich get richer while the poor get poorer... and I think that's why you like him to be honest.Opportunity for education? Oh yeah, you said it was "obtainable"... and everyone qualifies for a grant right?lowing wrote:
So we have established, the opportunity for education, (beyond the free High School already provided) with govt. grants and we have established that our country is in no way short of charity and generosity. We just do not have our govt. dictating to us or forcing us. It would appear the only thing left to discuss is the individual and his desire to succeed.
Charity and generosity? I forgot you had cleared up the sick and homeless problem with your charitable organisations, my bad. No need for Government action to tackle these social problems at all here.
An individual's desire to succeed? The most important commodity of all, now let's make sure it's not stifled by obstacles that a responsible Government could help remove.
Which is why, I have repeatedly stated I am against it. Free market should rule, those that fall, let them, there will be someone to sweep up and rebuild.Turquoise wrote:
I'm single, but I work hard. Most of us do.lowing wrote:
We should get something back. How about MY money? I have a family to support as well. I find it mind boggling that people will defend tht I need to work twice as hard for people that do not work at all. God I hate liberalsTurquoise wrote:
Well, we agree on that then, but... the fact that we have already bailed them out means we should get something in return. I say we nationalize the bastards. If I'm picking up their tab for their debts, they better give me some fucking stock options.
But you're not really working "twice as hard" for freeloaders. You're working twice as hard so that politicians can pay back all the special interests that got them elected. This isn't a fight against the poor... it's a fight where the elite rich are attempting to make most of us poor enough to be subservient to them.
Wall Street wants us to socialize their losses while privatizing their gains. It's the worst kind of welfare that exists.
Untrue. You can own guns in Europe, just not big fuck-off medi-guns or kalashnikovs. And it's not just as simple as walking into a store and picking one up.lowing wrote:
^^^^^^^^^Uhhhhh that is not true
In Europe you are not allowed to own a gun. Big brother has said so.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-23 05:44:34)
That's 100% wrong.lowing wrote:
^^^^^^^^^Uhhhhh that is not true
In Europe you are not allowed to own a gun. Big brother has said so.
Ya mean I can go to England and buy a handgun?CameronPoe wrote:
Untrue. You can own guns in Europe, just not big fuck-off medi-guns or kalashnikovs. And it's not just as simple as walking into a store and picking one up.lowing wrote:
^^^^^^^^^Uhhhhh that is not true
In Europe you are not allowed to own a gun. Big brother has said so.
If you apply for a licence and have a valid reason for purchasing one (if the UK is like Ireland).lowing wrote:
Ya mean I can go to England and buy a handgun?CameronPoe wrote:
Untrue. You can own guns in Europe, just not big fuck-off medi-guns or kalashnikovs. And it's not just as simple as walking into a store and picking one up.lowing wrote:
^^^^^^^^^Uhhhhh that is not true
In Europe you are not allowed to own a gun. Big brother has said so.
Ja tisCameronPoe wrote:
If you apply for a licence and have a valid reason for purchasing one (if the UK is like Ireland).lowing wrote:
Ya mean I can go to England and buy a handgun?CameronPoe wrote:
Untrue. You can own guns in Europe, just not big fuck-off medi-guns or kalashnikovs. And it's not just as simple as walking into a store and picking one up.