Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11

 

2006-04-05 19:05:21
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
Alright, so let's say a lower class person has gained personal responsibility and wants to start bettering himself.  In your own political ideology, how will they do that?  If you start with nothing, what options does your personal conservative government give you to be able to enter the workforce to pull up out of squalor?

A second question, if you feel the government is not obligated to do this, then how does this stop the growing gap between the rich and the poor?  Most poor people are stuck in that state because of a severe lack of opportunity along with a lack of resources to get them to points of opportunity.  And since when did the Government become a separate entity from the People?  The Government in this country is made to represent all of the citizens in this country.
2006-04-05 20:03:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

Alright, so let's say a lower class person has gained personal responsibility and wants to start bettering himself.  In your own political ideology, how will they do that?  If you start with nothing, what options does your personal conservative government give you to be able to enter the workforce to pull up out of squalor?

A second question, if you feel the government is not obligated to do this, then how does this stop the growing gap between the rich and the poor?  Most poor people are stuck in that state because of a severe lack of opportunity along with a lack of resources to get them to points of opportunity.  And since when did the Government become a separate entity from the People?  The Government in this country is made to represent all of the citizens in this country.
If someone all of a sudden decided to better themselves, there are student loans, grants,  hell, here in georgia you can get retrained into another profession for free all the while collecting unemployment. There are a ton of ways you can better yourself in this country. You just gotta stop "holding out for a management postion", and try. And if you aren't trying, and blaming "the man" for your own short comings or your lack of motivation then it is your fault.

Anyone can start at McDonalds at minimum wage. If you never had a job, then minimum wage is more than you are currently making. (Unless of course you are making more money on welfare). Start at McDonalds work up over the years to a pretty decient living as a regional manager or some shit. Same for Wal-Mart, start as a casheir and work up. Please do not try and tell me it is hopeless for anyone but the god damned rich to live a fruitful life in America. there are plenty of options open for anyone that wants to try. How do you think the rich got that way?

the govt. shouldn't be responsible for holding your hand through life. the govt. provides you with all the tools you need to better yourself, it isn't their fault if you don't, or mine.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-05 20:16:38)

2006-04-05 20:16:14
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
Not the answer.  If you Start with nothing...i.e., living in squalor, no income, no access to basic necessities of life, how do you get yourself ready to even apply for a minimum wage job?  By the way, minimum wage is a Social reform, and due to Right Congressional opposition, Minimum wage has not been tied to monetary inflation, thus people who have to live on it get stuck falling lower and lower under the antiquated povery line.  Welfare and homeless shelters are Social reforms as well...places and programs for people to get their lives back on track.  Your staunch opposition to these ideas makes it seem that you'd rather do away with it all and leave everyone to fend for themselves, in which they'd get absolutely nowhere.

"regional manager or some shit."...not a very educated response there.  It just sounds like you haven't looked into it at all, or you just feel that opportunity is obviously Constantly available to everyone in this country...something that really shouldn't be taken for granted.

It's funny...every program and aid structure you cited spawns off of ideas that you have established yourself to constantly denounce here.
2006-04-05 20:18:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

Not the answer.  If you Start with nothing...i.e., living in squalor, no income, no access to basic necessities of life, how do you get yourself ready to even apply for a minimum wage job?  By the way, minimum wage is a Social reform, and due to Right Congressional opposition, Minimum wage has not been tied to monetary inflation, thus people who have to live on it get stuck falling lower and lower under the antiquated povery line.  Welfare and homeless shelters are Social reforms as well...places and programs for people to get their lives back on track.  Your staunch opposition to these ideas makes it seem that you'd rather do away with it all and leave everyone to fend for themselves, in which they'd get absolutely nowhere.

"regional manager or some shit."...not a very educated response there.  It just sounds like you haven't looked into it at all, or you just feel that opportunity is obviously Constantly available to everyone in this country...something that really shouldn't be taken for granted.

It's funny...every program and aid structure you cited spawns off of ideas that you have established yourself to constantly denounce here.
No i do not denounce these social programs Marconius, I denounce the slugs that choose these programs as a way of life, rather than a temporary helping hand. I give you the victims of Katrina as a perfect example. Living for free on social progams in other cities and when it ran out they all starting bitching and complaining. Anyone that really wanted help got it and moved on, the rest milked it for all they could get.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-05 20:21:27)

2006-04-05 20:22:07
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
Well, there you go!  You aren't opposed to the political ideologies present, you just don't like the fact that some people in this country can abuse them!  Any system can be abused, but the fact of the matter is it helps the majority of the people on them to get their lives back on track, and if more Congressional help were put into these social reforms and progressive programs, they can be made better to lessen the abuse and help out those that absolutely and positively NEED to be dependent on them in order to get themselves to an active level in society.
2006-04-05 20:24:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA
the social programs of this country are being used as a life style Marconius, not for its intended purpose. Your ideals might be ok if they were set up to really take care of people that have had a tough break and need a helping hand. But you and I both know that is not what these programs are being used for.
2006-04-05 20:27:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

Well, there you go!  You aren't opposed to the political ideologies present, you just don't like the fact that some people in this country can abuse them!  Any system can be abused, but the fact of the matter is it helps the majority of the people on them to get their lives back on track, and if more Congressional help were put into these social reforms and progressive programs, they can be made better to lessen the abuse and help out those that absolutely and positively NEED to be dependent on them in order to get themselves to an active level in society.
If it helped the MAJORITY of the people yes, I pay enough taxes to do just that, but it is the MAJORITY that are abusing these programs, and my heartaches come from liberals that only want to keep spoon feeding them. I say fuck them.......If you have 2 arms and 2 legs and are not mentally handicapped get your fuckin ass out there and find a fuckin job instead of counting on me to take care of you.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-05 20:27:59)

2006-04-05 20:27:35
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
That's a generalized statement.  Not everyone uses it as a constant life style, and as I said, if more support were thrown into these programs, it would allow more people to take steps up rather than constantly stay where they are.  Why do you think no progress has been made on these programs?  As these are mainly liberal reforms, it surely isn't the liberal side of things that is holding them back...
2006-04-05 20:28:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

That's a generalized statement.  Not everyone uses it as a constant life style, and as I said, if more support were thrown into these programs, it would allow more people to take steps up rather than constantly stay where they are.  Why do you think no progress has been made on these programs?  As these are mainly liberal reforms, it surely isn't the liberal side of things that is holding them back...
If more support was thrown into these programs then you will more people abusing it. I am afraid to say.
2006-04-05 20:29:38
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6805
my immigrant mother was on welfare for a short while when I was born...now she makes $75 an hour and one of the top in her research profession.  I firmly believe that the majority of americans who use these social services are using them to better their lives and the lives of their family members in order to reach the next level of success
2006-04-05 20:31:06
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA
And no it isn't generalizing because if it were only a select few that were abusing it, then everyone wouldn't be so pissed off about it. Just like illegal immagration, if it were only a few crossing our boarders illegally who gives a shit? But it is a MAJOR crisis in our country now. Just like our social programs being bled dry by parasites.
2006-04-05 20:33:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

my immigrant mother was on welfare for a short while when I was born...now she makes $75 an hour and one of the top in her research profession.  I firmly believe that the majority of americans who use these social services are using them to better their lives and the lives of their family members in order to reach the next level of success
Well your mother is a shining example of what it was set up to do, and now she has the American dream. But according to Marconius she should have never been able to succeed like she did, because the opportunity for her to succeed wasn't there. She must have created her own opportunites since she immagrated to a country that provided her the freedom to do so. Let me ask, did she even speak english when she got here? Cuz our cities are full of english speaking people that just can't seem to catch a BREAK.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-05 20:36:09)

2006-04-05 20:39:17
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6805
The oppurtunity is always here, thats what makes our nation the greatest. But it is true that there are a lot of people who just expect handouts for the rest of their lives.  I felt really guilty recieving unemployment checks while I was going to college after I got out the army, I had no intention of getting a job,but,  I figured i deserved it for the fucked up shit this gov't put me through sometimes.
2006-04-05 20:47:48
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
*facepalm*
lowing, what the fuck...
You just seem to be flip-flopping all over the place here. 

lowing wrote:

But according to Marconius she should have never been able to succeed like she did, because the opportunity for her to succeed wasn't there.
I never said that.  I was trying to get you to give me a step-by-step list of events that someone living in squalor would use under YOUR system of government which denounces Liberal social policy!

You want people to do things for themselves, yet you want them to use programs and reforms that all came out of Liberal and Social policy.
2006-04-05 21:11:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

*facepalm*
lowing, what the fuck...
You just seem to be flip-flopping all over the place here. 

lowing wrote:

But according to Marconius she should have never been able to succeed like she did, because the opportunity for her to succeed wasn't there.
I never said that.  I was trying to get you to give me a step-by-step list of events that someone living in squalor would use under YOUR system of government which denounces Liberal social policy!

You want people to do things for themselves, yet you want them to use programs and reforms that all came out of Liberal and Social policy.
No Marconius, Gunslingers mother did it for herself, liberals want to increase the handouts because (and YES you did say it), poor people don't have a fair opportunity to succeed in this country.

And if you really need a step by step account, then start by asking Gunslingers mother.
2006-04-05 21:14:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA
As for me, I joined the military with nothing,  and turned it into a pretty successful airline career. Plus I own a small business, that is doing merely ok.
2006-04-05 21:15:23
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6805
dont ask her, she votes republican...lol
2006-04-05 21:16:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

dont ask her, she votes republican...lol
LMAO!!
2006-04-05 21:18:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA
I a more than willing to help ANYONE in this country under 2 conditions,

1 you are here legally.

2 you help me help you.

But liberals do not adhere to that criteria for services and that is my problem with liberals.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-05 21:19:21)

2006-04-05 21:23:26
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
OK, so now we are moderately getting somewhere.

Please give me a distinct case that backs up your problem with Liberals.
2006-04-05 23:09:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

OK, so now we are moderately getting somewhere.

Please give me a distinct case that backs up your problem with Liberals.
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the Bible yesterday to criticize a stringent border security measure that, among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants." typical liberal stance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans believe that the only way to preserve world peace is to have a powerful, prepared defense.
The Republican Party and its leaders are strongly opposed to domestic and international terrorism, and are committed to a policy that will make no concessions to terrorists.
The Republican Party believes in working diplomatically to help resolve dangerous regional conflicts and has achieved a reduction of nuclear weapons.Defense Peace and freedom can be only achieved though strength. History has shown, painfully, that weakness and vacillation invite aggression.


""Democrats administrations have cut America's defenses. Relying on talk and good intentions to preserve world peace, Democrats advocate sublimation of our sovereign interest to the authority of the United Nations."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Republicans support: able-bodied recipients of welfare to work, time limits on assistance, incentives to receive schooling or job training and pursuing"dead-beat dads" for child support."



"Democrats vote against requiring recipients to work and time limits on welfare."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to name a few.
2006-04-05 23:53:04
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6856|San Francisco
You never went through a basic Critical Thinking class, did you?  Cite your sources, sir.
2006-04-06 05:10:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6813|USA

Marconius wrote:

You never went through a basic Critical Thinking class, did you?  Cite your sources, sir.
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillar … eMatch.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_K … eMatch.htm


enjoy
2006-04-06 07:50:35
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6920|MA, USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/cty_f_GNQ.html
Scroll down to #16, Flows of Aid....
Just one example.  Use the power of the internet and research some for yourself if you are so interested.

I suggest applying political pressure to the companies doing business with the dictatorships.  Yes, we removed the tyrannical government of Iraq.  But thats not why we went there my friend (at least not the reason given to the US public).  Now, after the fact, we say we are implementing democracy.  My point being that as long as tyrannical, totalitarian/authoritarian governments are of a benefit to the US, we do nothing.  Further, we try to subversively dismantle democratically elected governments (Venezuela) when they are not in line with US interests.
But I digress.  Back to the orginal topic.  Sorry guys
Ok, let me see if I have this straight...

Equatorial Guinea is a nasty dictatorship?  Given that their president has been in power since 1979, I can see that they are far from the ideal democracy...so ok.  But I do find myself wondering what makes them worse than others.  You also clam that the US is to be criticized for giving them on the order of $10E7?  Well, that is a pretty piss poor aid package, but whatever, I guess I can see that.

Yet, the US is also to be criticized for opposing the "democratically elected" government of Venezuela?  Wow.  That's pretty generous, given the number of irregularities in that 'democratic election.'

Why is it bad to support one questionable regime, and still bad to oppose a different questionable regime?  You seem to have a preference for one regime that a lot of people find oppresive and nasty, over another.  This is the same thing you accuse the US of doing.

Your viewpoint is inconsistent.  You have an axe to grind with respect to US policy.

Marconius wrote:

Anyways...I present the political spectrum:

http://content.answers.com/main/content … ectrum.PNG
Marconious, those charts are not good.  They represent no legitimate depiction of the political spectrum I have ever seen before.  The diamond shaped one you posted before was much better.

By the way, the 'Social Contract' is a myth perpetrated by statists.  It basically says we 'owe' the government for what it gives us (simplistic, but I'm trying to keep this short).  The flaw is that I don't accept it, it is forced upon me whether I like it or not.  The entire concept is like that of the 'Original Sin.'  One is born into the Social Contract; just as one is born with sin and must be saved by God, one is born into debt to one's government for the benefits it provides.  Sorry, but I don't accept either.  I have no sins other than those I have committed myself, and I do not owe for benefits I  have not explicitly accepted.

As far as this whole argument with lowing goes, he is not the best representative of his argument, but he has a point.   I  suspect many of you know it, and are deliberately ignoring it to undermine that point.  That is a debate technique (and a good one), but that doesn't change the truth of it.  I'm not going to pick up the gauntlet for him because I don't entirely agree with him (although I don't entirely disagree). 

Nevertheless, I have posted here twice regarding Classical Liberalism (which is the philosophy of Thomas Pain, Jefferson, Mill, Smith etc.)  Let's not make any mistakes here:  Classical Liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with modern Liberalism.  Modern Liberalism tends toward redistribution of wealth and government solutions to problems.  Classical Liberalism regards the rights of the individual as greater than those of the state, and frowns upon government solutions which require compulsion of the individual.  The two philosophies are AT ODDS.

The problem with lowing's argument is that he takes the Conservatives at their word.  They claim to be for limits on the authority of government, but in practice they are no better than the Liberals (who at least make it very clear they intend to use government to solve problems, regardless of any Constitutional obstacles).  Both trample the rights of the individual and make a shambles of the clear intent of the Constitution.  See Kelo vs. New London for an egregious example.  Look at any Federal Budget since 1988 for more.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-06 07:58:26)

2006-04-06 08:09:53
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|6968|Orlando, FL - Age 43

whittsend wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/cty_f_GNQ.html
Scroll down to #16, Flows of Aid....
Just one example.  Use the power of the internet and research some for yourself if you are so interested.

I suggest applying political pressure to the companies doing business with the dictatorships.  Yes, we removed the tyrannical government of Iraq.  But thats not why we went there my friend (at least not the reason given to the US public).  Now, after the fact, we say we are implementing democracy.  My point being that as long as tyrannical, totalitarian/authoritarian governments are of a benefit to the US, we do nothing.  Further, we try to subversively dismantle democratically elected governments (Venezuela) when they are not in line with US interests.
But I digress.  Back to the orginal topic.  Sorry guys
Ok, let me see if I have this straight...

Equatorial Guinea is a nasty dictatorship?  Given that their president has been in power since 1979, I can see that they are far from the ideal democracy...so ok.  But I do find myself wondering what makes them worse than others.  You also clam that the US is to be criticized for giving them on the order of $10E7?  Well, that is a pretty piss poor aid package, but whatever, I guess I can see that.

Yet, the US is also to be criticized for opposing the "democratically elected" government of Venezuela?  Wow.  That's pretty generous, given the number of irregularities in that 'democratic election.'

Why is it bad to support one questionable regime, and still bad to oppose a different questionable regime?  You seem to have a preference for one regime that a lot of people find oppresive and nasty, over another.  This is the same thing you accuse the US of doing.

Your viewpoint is inconsistent.  You have an axe to grind with respect to US policy.

Marconius wrote:

Anyways...I present the political spectrum:

http://content.answers.com/main/content … ectrum.PNG
Marconious, those charts are not good.  They represent no legitimate depiction of the political spectrum I have ever seen before.  The diamond shaped one you posted before was much better.

By the way, the 'Social Contract' is a myth perpetrated by statists.  It basically says we 'owe' the government for what it gives us (simplistic, but I'm trying to keep this short).  The flaw is that I don't accept it, it is forced upon me whether I like it or not.  The entire concept is like that of the 'Original Sin.'  One is born into the Social Contract; just as one is born with sin and must be saved by God, one is born into debt to one's government for the benefits it provides.  Sorry, but I don't accept either.  I have no sins other than those I have committed myself, and I do not owe for benefits I  have not explicitly accepted.

As far as this whole argument with lowing goes, he is not the best representative of his argument, but he has a point.   I  suspect many of you know it, and are deliberately ignoring it to undermine that point.  That is a debate technique (and a good one), but that doesn't change the truth of it.  I'm not going to pick up the gauntlet for him because I don't entirely agree with him (although I don't entirely disagree). 

Nevertheless, I have posted here twice regarding Classical Liberalism (which is the philosophy of Thomas Pain, Jefferson, Mill, Smith etc.)  Let's not make any mistakes here:  Classical Liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with modern Liberalism.  Modern Liberalism tends toward redistribution of wealth and government solutions to problems.  Classical Liberalism regards the rights of the individual as greater than those of the state, and frowns upon government solutions which require compulsion of the individual.  The two philosophies are AT ODDS.

The problem with lowing's argument is that he takes the Conservatives at their word.  They claim to be for limits on the authority of government, but in practice they are no better than the Liberals (who at least make it very clear they intend to use government to solve problems, regardless of any Constitutional obstacles).  Both trample the rights of the individual and make a shambles of the clear intent of the Constitution.  See Kelo vs. New London for an egregious example.  Look at any Federal Budget since 1988 for more.
I have to say that I agree with this post virtually 100%.

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard