BF2S Forums Republicans finding it hard to shake racist image.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ya gotta love the entitlement crowd don't ya?

Yes Lowing, people are entitled to a decent standard of living, they are entitled to programs and opportunities to enable them so succeed no matter the financial position of their parents. They are entitled to an education and to be treated when sick. They are entitled to live in a safe community free from criminals and pollutants. I'm not talking about a free ride Lowing, I'm talking about giving the same opportunities, the same chance of success to everyone and then letting the cards fall where they may. Not starting with a stacked deck and expecting those on the losing end to catch up.

no, you are not talking about equal opportunity, you are talking about equal results..............entitlement.

So thinking that everyone should have the right to vote is entitlement because it is result-oriented (I prefer 'equality of condition' and 'equality of opportunity', as a note), rather than providing equal opportunity, or is it equal opportunity because everyone has the same chances to make their voice heard? Sometimes, it seems as if equality of opportunity and equality of condition are less exclusive than your idealism pretends they are.

nukchebi0 wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Yes Lowing, people are entitled to a decent standard of living, they are entitled to programs and opportunities to enable them so succeed no matter the financial position of their parents. They are entitled to an education and to be treated when sick. They are entitled to live in a safe community free from criminals and pollutants. I'm not talking about a free ride Lowing, I'm talking about giving the same opportunities, the same chance of success to everyone and then letting the cards fall where they may. Not starting with a stacked deck and expecting those on the losing end to catch up.

no, you are not talking about equal opportunity, you are talking about equal results..............entitlement.

So thinking that everyone should have the right to vote is entitlement because it is result-oriented (I prefer 'equality of condition' and 'equality of opportunity', as a note), rather than providing equal opportunity, or is it equal opportunity because everyone has the same chances to make their voice heard? Sometimes, it seems as if equality of opportunity and equality of condition are less exclusive than your idealism pretends they are.

Equality of opportunity is the only relevant item here.

Lowing, read the post again. Second time.

I'm not talking about a free ride Lowing, I'm talking about giving the same opportunities, the same chance of success to everyone and then letting the cards fall where they may. Not starting with a stacked deck and expecting those on the losing end to catch up.

Besides, what you lot are doing is advocating, in essence, a return to feudalism. Too poor? Tough shit, you don't get any power at all.

--- And besides-besides, how the fuck is a homeless 10-year old kid expect to study in school properly? You must be out of your fucking minds.

Spark wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

lowing wrote:

no, you are not talking about equal opportunity, you are talking about equal results..............entitlement.

So thinking that everyone should have the right to vote is entitlement because it is result-oriented (I prefer 'equality of condition' and 'equality of opportunity', as a note), rather than providing equal opportunity, or is it equal opportunity because everyone has the same chances to make their voice heard? Sometimes, it seems as if equality of opportunity and equality of condition are less exclusive than your idealism pretends they are.

Equality of opportunity is the only relevant item here.

Lowing, read the post again. Second time.

I'm not talking about a free ride Lowing, I'm talking about giving the same opportunities, the same chance of success to everyone and then letting the cards fall where they may. Not starting with a stacked deck and expecting those on the losing end to catch up.

Besides, what you lot are doing is advocating, in essence, a return to feudalism. Too poor? Tough shit, you don't get any power at all.

--- And besides-besides, how the fuck is a homeless 10-year old kid expect to study in school properly? You must be out of your fucking minds.

He is talking about a free ride, read my responses, you expect equal results, and when it does not happen you scream the lack of opportunity. You offer nothing but excuses for failure, in a country where you are FREE to succeed or fail as you see fit, based on your personal free will, and how you choose to exercise it.

I am not speaking of feudalism. Poor people turn their lives around every day. They are not kept down by laws, only their own person choices.

Oh and before you say it, you need to do more than CHOOSE not to be poor, you must act on it also.



Lastly if you have read my posts these past few years, I have always been an advocate of taking care of children and those that can not help themselves. Do you really have to try and stoop to a homeless 10 year old as an example? Is that the best you can do, or is it that you can not justify in an argument your own bullshit?

lowing wrote:

Lastly if you have read my posts these past few years, I have always been an advocate of taking care of children and those that can not help themselves. Do you really have to try and stoop to a homeless 10 year old as an example? Is that the best you can do, or is it that you can not justify in an argument your own bullshit?

Actually this is the first time you spell that out clearly ...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p1117687

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2130788

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2130679 <------ note this one was a response to you.

plenty more but I don't feel like searching all night.


Shall I hold my breath for a retraction?

Last edited by lowing (2009-06-19 01:29:47)

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

So thinking that everyone should have the right to vote is entitlement because it is result-oriented (I prefer 'equality of condition' and 'equality of opportunity', as a note), rather than providing equal opportunity, or is it equal opportunity because everyone has the same chances to make their voice heard? Sometimes, it seems as if equality of opportunity and equality of condition are less exclusive than your idealism pretends they are.

Equality of opportunity is the only relevant item here.

Lowing, read the post again. Second time.

I'm not talking about a free ride Lowing, I'm talking about giving the same opportunities, the same chance of success to everyone and then letting the cards fall where they may. Not starting with a stacked deck and expecting those on the losing end to catch up.

Besides, what you lot are doing is advocating, in essence, a return to feudalism. Too poor? Tough shit, you don't get any power at all.

--- And besides-besides, how the fuck is a homeless 10-year old kid expect to study in school properly? You must be out of your fucking minds.

He is talking about a free ride, read my responses, you expect equal results, and when it does not happen you scream the lack of opportunity. You offer nothing but excuses for failure, in a country where you are FREE to succeed or fail as you see fit, based on your personal free will, and how you choose to exercise it.

I am not speaking of feudalism. Poor people turn their lives around every day. They are not kept down by laws, only their own person choices.

Oh and before you say it, you need to do more than CHOOSE not to be poor, you must act on it also.



Lastly if you have read my posts these past few years, I have always been an advocate of taking care of children and those that can not help themselves. Do you really have to try and stoop to a homeless 10 year old as an example? Is that the best you can do, or is it that you can not justify in an argument your own bullshit?

Poor people turn their lives around every day, but that's in spite of the system, not because of it or otherwise.

Well, I don't know what you're talking about, I'm talking about EXACTLY those people who cannot help themselves in any meaningful fashion.

lowing wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

So lowing, you think that if someone drops out of high school, they shouldn't be doted on by the government? Should their familial conditions be assisted to help ensure they don't, though? Poverty and easy access to gang activities (or a pervasive influence thereof) can derail somoene who would otherwise complete high school, as would the culture of the school they attend and their family itself. Its not very clear whether your ideal solution has stipulations for helping people out of failure, or merely laughing at them for it. Yes, if they drop out, they should not be rewarded, but they should be given a fair chance to succeed. It doesn't seem as if you have any concern for that either.

Spark wrote:

Equality of opportunity is the only relevant item here.

What is that supposed to mean?

Free HS is your fair chance to succeed, dropping out is the choice that you now live with, it should not be your choice I have to live with.

If you are a father who can not support your family, they should be taken away from you. Plenty of responsible people out there who are able to raise kids but can not have any of their own.

My ideal solution helps people that HELP THEMSELVES out of their own mistakes, I do not support subsidizing their mistakes by rewarding their failure with "free" programs to support their sorry asses, with no intention of payment back to society.

That sometimes isn't so clear. I don't think you and DrunkFace were thinking of the same thing.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-06-19 02:59:18)

AussieReaper wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

This coming from the same people who believe colleges are full of brainwashing professors jamming liberal ideology down students throats?

Gimme a break.

Have you gone to college in the US?

Have you?

yes and he is correct

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

So thinking that everyone should have the right to vote is entitlement because it is result-oriented (I prefer 'equality of condition' and 'equality of opportunity', as a note), rather than providing equal opportunity, or is it equal opportunity because everyone has the same chances to make their voice heard? Sometimes, it seems as if equality of opportunity and equality of condition are less exclusive than your idealism pretends they are.

Equality of opportunity is the only relevant item here.

Lowing, read the post again. Second time.


Besides, what you lot are doing is advocating, in essence, a return to feudalism. Too poor? Tough shit, you don't get any power at all.

--- And besides-besides, how the fuck is a homeless 10-year old kid expect to study in school properly? You must be out of your fucking minds.

He is talking about a free ride, read my responses, you expect equal results, and when it does not happen you scream the lack of opportunity. You offer nothing but excuses for failure, in a country where you are FREE to succeed or fail as you see fit, based on your personal free will, and how you choose to exercise it.

I am not speaking of feudalism. Poor people turn their lives around every day. They are not kept down by laws, only their own person choices.

Oh and before you say it, you need to do more than CHOOSE not to be poor, you must act on it also.



Lastly if you have read my posts these past few years, I have always been an advocate of taking care of children and those that can not help themselves. Do you really have to try and stoop to a homeless 10 year old as an example? Is that the best you can do, or is it that you can not justify in an argument your own bullshit?

Poor people turn their lives around every day, but that's in spite of the system, not because of it or otherwise.

Well, I don't know what you're talking about, I'm talking about EXACTLY those people who cannot help themselves in any meaningful fashion.

No the difference is that some people choose to beter their lives , while others do not.

No you are talking about people who CHOSE not to persue education, military, technical school. You are talking about people who MADR choices that put htem where they are, bet it drugs, crime, lack of education, laziness, or a combinaton of any one of them.


You know what I am talking about, you are the one who tries to use a homeless 10 year old as your shinning example of the rnedd for socialism

So someone who has to get a full time job and has to split his time between getting a paycheck to pay for university and studying what he needs to has to same opportunity as someone who's parents is able to fork out the bill?

Someone who gets ill or has a genetic condition has to choose whether to pay for medical treatment they need to live or get that education or pay off the mortgage has the same opportunities as the healthy person who doesn't have these medical costs?

The student who lives in the ghettos and slums who go to schools where the teachers just don't give a shit and are surrounded by gangs, drugs and crime constantly has the same opportunities as the students in the wealthy areas with teachers who can be bothered to teach. To add to this, looking at the thousands apon thousands of dollars needed to get a decent education and the quick easy cash drugs/crime offers what do you think the immature are going to choose being surrounded by the life style 24/7?

lowing wrote:

There are no laws keeping anyone down. There is only free will, or lack of it.

I disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmativ … ted_States

Real life consequences.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =103289178

AussieReaper wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

This coming from the same people who believe colleges are full of brainwashing professors jamming liberal ideology down students throats?

Gimme a break.

Have you gone to college in the US?

Have you?

yes