BF2S Forums Typical liberal hypocrisy

lowing wrote:

1. what I have against welfare moms, is she shouldn't have kids and be on welfare. It is personally irresponsible to have kids that you can not afford. Octo-mom for example. Now this is where you say I'M GENERALIZING". the fact is, women like Oct-mom is the rule not the exception.

2. Sorry, try something other than insults and spelling corrections in your posts. I know, try actually making an argument. By the way, you misspelled ideologues, it is spelled without the 'a', apparently. glass houses

3. Oh ok, so you really didn't LYAO, or ROTFLYAO, or even LOL, got it now. Yeah yeah yeah, and liberals compare Bush to Hitler as well, like I said it is an old song with people such as yourself. You hate Thatcher I think I got it, was I supposed to convince you to love her or something?

4. to be honest I couldn't give 2 flying fucks what he does for a living. I was asking because his rant pretty much trashed anyone with a job that remotely had any connection to govt. at all. So I was curious to see, after his criticisms, what he did for living. I mean since Cam was busted spouting basically the same line of bullshit, only to find out his company held govt. contracts as well.

1. Blanket unfounded statments like "women like Oct-mom is the rule not the exception" (I'm guessing 'octo-mum' is childish term a woman with eight children?) are why you have zero credibility.

2. Damn I knew I'd mispelled something.

3. No, I doubt you could convince me of anything as your reasoning is so all over the place. But why did you bother saying some shit like 'god save Margaret Thatcher' other than to provoke me? Not because it's part of a 'rational' argument. And whatever you say, you still don't know shit about her or the effect she had on Britain, so imo it's stupid using some bullshit quote from her in your sig.

4. If you don't give two flying fucks stop asking. Simple.

No chance of getting a rational response to that other post of mine I guess? Oh well never mind. byeeeee.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I think people are missing the point of the posts.

Lowing you are transposing your own hatred of welfare on what I've posted, IMO there is nothing wrong with welfare and therefore nothing wrong in welfare for service. But your response shows I've hit a nerve because I know that the term "welfare" is a word used to seperate the other and when you hit a nerve that's when you make people think.

Lowing here is the difference between me an you, I don't complain if someone is collecting a govt check, whether serving the country or sitting on welfare. What I am pointing out is that some individuals (meaning that there is a lot of people out there with this view point) who collect govt checks or benefits look down their noses and brow beat other people who are also receiving govt funds. Shit... you could probably find alot of people actually on welfare that hate people on welfare and that's psychotic. IMO these people pretty much lose their credibility to brow beat others and I'm not really interested in beating you up about it or belaboring the point. What I am pointing out to others who are reading these posts that there is some hypocrisy in all this. When you shake things up a little, like viewing all govt pay as welfare for service, it can help you gain new perspective on a subject and highlight areas of inconsistent thought.... But peronsally I'm all for looking out for your own self interest.

So using the union example
1. Individuals receiving the benefit that they would try to withhold from others = hypocrisy
2. Individuals belonging to a union voting for conservative anti-union govts = going against your own self interests
Both don't make any sense


Hey Lowing here's two simple questions

What do you think about the govt paying for a person's post secondary education?
What do you think about the govt paying for someones training?

Because my guess is that the govt paid for your training, and then you went over to a private contractor as soon as you could to make 2 or 3 times the amount that the govt was paying you. That is pretty much the career path right? Now, if that were the case then you as an individual would certainly be acting rationally and in your own self interest and there is nothing wrong with that, save that the policy makers permitted or encouraged people by making it a possibility that you could be trained at taxpayers expense and then permitted to go work for a private contractor hired by the govt.... which is more expensive to taxpayers and so that doesn't make a whole lot sense from a financial standpoint. But the opportunity was there, you took advantage, you made out alright and sincerely good for you.


Point is... If you received benefit of the taxpayer, you should at least be a little gracious when judging others when they are in need of public benefit. Otherwise it simply looks like its OK if you receive the money but totally unacceptable when someone else receives it... and to me that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Hating welfare moms is irrational and in the total scheme of things a few people collecting welfare or having a few social programs are not going to bankrupt the system, if anything, the past few years has shown us what it takes to drives the country to bankruptcy.

Nope, everyone got your point, they simply don't agree with it. people working for a living, be it for you or a private company is not on welfare. You have pushed so hard into the realms of the absurd that even those that once backed are now bowing out and distancing themselves form your irrational rants.

IN FACT, the term welfare does not even fit your desired use of it.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare. 
4. (initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.

—Idiom5. on welfare, receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need.

Niether of those definitions apply to someone with a marketable trade and hires themselves out for compensation.

So really, before we continue, we have to come ot an understandings as to what welfare is, the actual definition and context of the term used by everyone else, or what you say it is.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-08 11:42:22)

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. what I have against welfare moms, is she shouldn't have kids and be on welfare. It is personally irresponsible to have kids that you can not afford. Octo-mom for example. Now this is where you say I'M GENERALIZING". the fact is, women like Oct-mom is the rule not the exception.

2. Sorry, try something other than insults and spelling corrections in your posts. I know, try actually making an argument. By the way, you misspelled ideologues, it is spelled without the 'a', apparently. glass houses

3. Oh ok, so you really didn't LYAO, or ROTFLYAO, or even LOL, got it now. Yeah yeah yeah, and liberals compare Bush to Hitler as well, like I said it is an old song with people such as yourself. You hate Thatcher I think I got it, was I supposed to convince you to love her or something?

4. to be honest I couldn't give 2 flying fucks what he does for a living. I was asking because his rant pretty much trashed anyone with a job that remotely had any connection to govt. at all. So I was curious to see, after his criticisms, what he did for living. I mean since Cam was busted spouting basically the same line of bullshit, only to find out his company held govt. contracts as well.

1. Blanket unfounded statments like "women like Oct-mom is the rule not the exception" (I'm guessing 'octo-mum' is childish term a woman with eight children?) are why you have zero credibility.

2. Damn I knew I'd mispelled something.

3. No, I doubt you could convince me of anything as your reasoning is so all over the place. But why did you bother saying some shit like 'god save Margaret Thatcher' other than to provoke me? Not because it's part of a 'rational' argument. And whatever you say, you still don't know shit about her or the effect she had on Britain, so imo it's stupid using some bullshit quote from her in your sig.

4. If you don't give two flying fucks stop asking. Simple.

No chance of getting a rational response to that other post of mine I guess? Oh well never mind. byeeeee.

1. you may wanna google octo-mom before you spout off about what you think you know.

2. No kidding

3. Actually my reasoning is straight as an arrow. I siad it to be a smart ass, because you insist I shouldn't and that your opinion is the only one that matters. Yeah yeah yeah, everyone hated her. You mean the liberals hated her.

4. The fact that he wants to belittle anyone connected to the govt. yet will not devulge his own source of income can be quite telling. Ask CameronPoe.

lowing wrote:

Nothing wrong with a Mcjob. In fact, I had one as HS kid, then as my life progressed so did my income. As my decisions got more responsible so did my jobs, then my marketablity.

There will always be a need for people to fullfill the low ends jobs, and it is the college kid and HS kid working for pocket money or beer money  that is SUPPOSED to fill them, taking the place of the HS kid that graduated and went to college or the college kid that earned their diploma and moved into a career. These jobs are not meant to be living wage jobs, and yet you seem to expect that thay should be. Reality is, a small business owner can not stay in business if he is supposed to pay his janitor as if he was an engineer. If that janitor wants engineer salary then he must work for it, if he is not expected to, in order to earn a fantasitc living, what incentive should the engineer have to make HIS paycheck?

You speak as if I was born marketable or have never known failure. Believe me I have. Assuming responsiblity for my failures and pulling myself up is what I did. What is it you expect from others?

Now before you start, I have always endorsed supporting those that can not help themselves. However I do not support welfare as a life style, nor do I support, supporting poor people in their idiotic decison making. I have my own life I must try and successfully navigate through without dashing myself on someone elses rocks of dispair.

No, I do not expect a janitor to be payed well, but at least at a level that makes survival possible.  A whole other debate is payscales.  The CEOs that pocket a few million in yearly bonuses, the executives at AIG who got bonuses despite this their blatant failures.  granted, that is a stretch, and a cheap example, but it does show extreme flaws in monetary compensation. 

ok.  So, we have these brilliant executives, pounding out the best methods of gaming (legally, but perhaps immorally) the system.  THAT idea, these smart people, know how to game the system... as in, fuck over as many people they can for their company's profit margins.  Obviously not all of them are like that, maybe not even a majority.

You have to acknowledge that history has shown that it is common for humans to exploit other humans, the smartest over the dumbest.  Survival of the fittest, but our current society is not that way.  Nor should it in the pure sense of the phrase.

As I have said at exhaustion,  Societies need a support system, which defies survival of the fittest.  But that is a high level corporate mindset, survival of the fittest.  Hell, it has to be.  But that doesn't work in a democracy.  It defies the very term.  That doesn't mean I am preaching fairness, but there is always a line between ambition and greed, especially when it comes from the expense of another.

But to counter the abuse and exploitation, we have system, laws, and welfare programs.  One, to help the lower people, and two, counter the over balance of the higher ups from said exploitation.

That is what makes democracies work.  It's not a fascist state, or a tyrannical state.  Survival of the fittest is a great method and standard in moderation.  Taken to the extreme, is evil.   That is what I am getting at.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, and agree with alot of your ideas, but I disagree with the staunch level you take things to, not to an irrational level, but to a very unforgiving level. And, no, I don't hand out forgiveness like its free, don't try to say that I was, you WERE going to .

There will always be people out there who exploit other people.  Kings did it, con men do it.  These people are usually not idiots, but their victims often are.  The U.S. constitution is based upon the idea of protecting people (Broad and a bit unfair to say that, but applicable none the less).

Even still, with power, comes corruption, Racism etc.  The darkside of human nature is still very prevalent today.  merely 50 years ago, we had segregation.  Oh christ, yes.... I just played the race card.

But there is a point to it (NO not a free excuse), prejudices and immorality such as back then factor heavily upon the less er people, placed upon them by the well-to-do.  Obviously not as a standard, but it happens.  IT happens not because succesful people are greedy and evil, but some are.  They can sometimes get away with it, due to the freedoms and throughways of our society.   

With such a free country comes one end: The freedom and ability to be a piece of shit loser, welfare jockey-TO a degree-, on the other, the freedom and ability to game the system and take advantage of other people -to a degree-

But which end has the smart ones? the powerful, the rich, the opposite of the welfare reciepients.   With the powerful, and with the ideals of our country comes, I feel, an obligation to counter balance, to assist the ones so easily exploitable.

----

The battle line in this thread, between you and I, I think, you are speaking from a view of the deadbeats, while I am looking from a view of people (some, some some, being taken advantage of), and/or in need of help who are genuinely good, useful people.  Not that Either of you and I are more wrong or more right...

I understand the extreme potential of abuse of the welfare system.  I just wonder if you are willing to consider how many people on welfare or some sort of assistance who are not there to bilk that system and are, again, useful good intended people.

NO, I do not think corporations or executives are the problem.  The problem is human nature.  Greedy on one end, sinfully lazy on the other.  Whose more wrong or right?

DO we clamp off the ability to be lazy, or a a greedy executive? No. Our country is not founded on or designed in that way.  The only rational alternative to patch up the imperfections as best as possible and moderate.

There are flaws in your beliefs as there is mine.   It just seems you are unwilling to give up any ground on anything that does not suit your own ends.  Societies don't function well that way.

JohnG@lt wrote:

How many of those jobs exist just to keep people working? How many could really be replaced by machines? I'd venture to say a good portion of them. I don't have any issue with people who are trying, even if they are failing repeatedly. I have serious issues with those that give up or don't try. The 25 year old working as a cashier at McDonalds is eventually going to either end up a manager there or on the rolls of public assistance. Was being a McDonalds cashier really the only job they were capable of working or did they choose the easy path with no responsibilities? If the answer to that question is yes, they are doing their best, then fine, if they end up on welfare I don't have a problem giving them enough support to not live an entirely shitty life. If the answer is in the second half, that they aren't really trying, then I say they deserve to starve to death living under a bridge somewhere.

The real question is how far should all these societal safety nets extend? Extend them too far and you end up with a lazy underclass who would rather live off government support than work. Extend them too little and you have people starving in the streets when they lose a job. I personally feel the net is way too far out there and that the system is being abused in a major way.

I'm going to stop here because I'm too tired to go back and reread your essay I hope you get my point.

We are advanced enough to have nearly all jobs replaced by machines. Are the machines cost effective?  That is the question.  Also, do you really want that?   Even less people with jobs in our country?   "Well yes, they should earn a better job" you might say.  I would have to agree.  But, as less jobs, more machines comes along, how would our economy, or even the global economy fair?   THAT is a big question I dare not destroy my  limited mind thinking about... at least not right now.

The answer to your cashier question is BOTH.   Some need help, some abuse help.   I think Lowing and I differ fundamentally on how many  abuse and how much abuse, or how much legitimate funding is sufficient.

As you feel, the current system is too extended, too abused. I feel it's insufficient, but abused.  Again, by how much.  We can never cut the system out.  Yes, no one said that.  But we all can agree the system is fucked up in many ways.

I don't think I have an answer.  But what I do know, is alot of the parts of the system ARE inadequate.  Sadly, and digustingly, I admit that it needs more oversight and bureaucracy, which we all can collectively groan at that idea, but it's true.  More oversight=more $.

Yep.  even this countries pockets are finite, and I see the problem right there in what I just said.  But something has to change,  bugdet cuts isn't the answer as it is already inadequate ,  throwing more money at it (in a proper way) could work, on paper at least....  Perhaps we should all just suck it up and give it a TRY.

I think we all have to remember that despite all the bullshit, all our opinions, The United States is (heh, well was before the financial collapse) in great damn shape in global comparison.  We must be doing SOMETHING right. lol.

EDIT: what also doesn't help, LOWING, is that you ARE confrontational, and if I was a betting man, I'd place a shit ton of money on the idea that you get an unhealthy amount of joy and entertainment at winding people up and infuriating them.

Plus, "you're Nazi, Lowing" probably gets a bit old too.

Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2009-10-08 12:32:03)

I believe it's with good reason lowing has chosen the colors and composition of the Armenian flag in his signature

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, everyone got your point, they simply don't agree with it. people working for a living, be it for you or a private company is not on welfare. You have pushed so hard into the realms of the absurd that even those that once backed are now bowing out and distancing themselves form your irrational rants.

IN FACT, the term welfare does not even fit your desired use of it.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare. 
4. (initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.

—Idiom5. on welfare, receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need.

Niether of those definitions apply to someone with a marketable trade and hires themselves out for compensation.

So really, before we continue, we have to come ot an understandings as to what welfare is, the actual definitionand context of the term used by everyone else, or what you say it is.

If you use the word marketable one more time I'm going to throw my computer through the wall. Please for the love of God remove that word from your internal lexicon.

the second you all stop calling having a job providing servies TO the taxpayer for compensation as being the same damn thing as RECEIVING money form the taxpayer for free.

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

oh by the way lowing I assume you are in favour of abortion. Are you also in favour of forced abortion or forced sterilisation? Just putting the question out there.

That is a subject very personal to me. When I was young I paid for an abortion for my then girlfriend. I regret it, and am haunted by that decision.

I do not favor legislation against it, I favor counseling to the parents and inform them of other alternatives.

But you would certainly favour it in the case of 'octomum' (that's a dumb media-invented term if ever I heard one)? I presume, and feel free to correct me, that you would consider it almost mandatory to get an abortion for those women who, you seem to think, leech off the system and shouldn't get pregnant, etc. Also forced sterilisation for the same women or, for that matter, the men who get them pregnant in the first place?

Varegg wrote:

I believe it's with good reason lowing has chosen the colors and composition of the Armenian flag in his signature

yes this is it, it has nothing to do with the fact that these were the only ones available.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. you may wanna google octo-mom before you spout off about what you think you know.

2. No kidding

3. Actually my reasoning is straight as an arrow. I siad it to be a smart ass, because you insist I shouldn't and that your opinion is the only one that matters. Yeah yeah yeah, everyone hated her. You mean the liberals hated her.

4. The fact that he wants to belittle anyone connected to the govt. yet will not devulge his own source of income can be quite telling. Ask CameronPoe.

1. I was hardly spouting off about anything was I? Now, I did google this octomum person, who, incidentally, I'm pretty sure no-one in Europe has heard of, and I still say your original statement was unfounded, blanket nonsense, supported by zero evidence except your own prejudices. According to your statement there must be millions of mothers out there each of whom has up to 14 kids who all hate their mother! Hmmmm, no that's not a generalisation I'm sure!

2. But your grammar and spelling still suck more than mine.

3. Who are these 'liberals' you keep talking about? Good luck finding many people who still do appreciate her these days, beyond the far-right. By the end even her own party liked her so much they kicked her out and replaced her with fuckin' JOHN MAJOR. That's how brilliant Maggie Thatcher was. In fact, if you knew anything about the subject, you should also know that despite her long reign of terror she had, on average, an approval rating of 40% - the second-lowest for any British Prime Minister since WWII. That's pretty bad by any standard, although I don't remember how bad Bush's rating was before he got voted out so he could have been more hated. Even after she went to war with Argentina over some worthless bloody rocks in the middle of nowhere (a brilliant ploy wasn't it, by the way - a war is always a good excuse to get support behind a government, as you guys know all too well) she only had a 55% approval rating. According to polls, she was consistently less popular than the party she represented. The reason she got elected a few times is more due to the fact that the UK voting system is stupid, rather than the fact she was insanely popular. Or maybe as far as you are concerned the 60% of the British populace who didn't like her were all detestable 'liberals'. Yeah right.

Regarding your quote, I merely suggest that using someone's quote in your sig when you don't know anything about that person or have zero idea what effect she had on the country in question is ignorant and foolish. I also never said my opinion is the only one that matters, quite the opposite in fact. Even your opinions matter to some extent, no matter how misguided I think they are. I also don't INSIST you should or shouldn't do anything, I just think it's a dumb move doing so in the case in question, i.e. in your sig.

4. wait, what, so you DO care now? Or you don't give a fuck like you said earlier? Whatever, it's still irrelevant to his point of view.

1. Hate to break it to you, but you have been spouting off since you entered this thread.


2. A complete sentence does not start with "but".


3. Bush wasn't voted out. He ran his 2 terms ( max) and left. Again ya hate Thatcher, I get it.


4. Nope I couldn't care less if he were on welfare himself. ( I mean the kind where you are not working for a living ). I ask a question, he refuses to answer. So someone so vocal about other peoples professions really shouldn't have a problem discussing their own.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I think people are missing the point of the posts.

Lowing you are transposing your own hatred of welfare on what I've posted, IMO there is nothing wrong with welfare and therefore nothing wrong in welfare for service. But your response shows I've hit a nerve because I know that the term "welfare" is a word used to seperate the other and when you hit a nerve that's when you make people think.

Lowing here is the difference between me an you, I don't complain if someone is collecting a govt check, whether serving the country or sitting on welfare. What I am pointing out is that some individuals (meaning that there is a lot of people out there with this view point) who collect govt checks or benefits look down their noses and brow beat other people who are also receiving govt funds. Shit... you could probably find alot of people actually on welfare that hate people on welfare and that's psychotic. IMO these people pretty much lose their credibility to brow beat others and I'm not really interested in beating you up about it or belaboring the point. What I am pointing out to others who are reading these posts that there is some hypocrisy in all this. When you shake things up a little, like viewing all govt pay as welfare for service, it can help you gain new perspective on a subject and highlight areas of inconsistent thought.... But peronsally I'm all for looking out for your own self interest.

So using the union example
1. Individuals receiving the benefit that they would try to withhold from others = hypocrisy
2. Individuals belonging to a union voting for conservative anti-union govts = going against your own self interests
Both don't make any sense


Hey Lowing here's two simple questions

What do you think about the govt paying for a person's post secondary education?
What do you think about the govt paying for someones training?

Because my guess is that the govt paid for your training, and then you went over to a private contractor as soon as you could to make 2 or 3 times the amount that the govt was paying you. That is pretty much the career path right? Now, if that were the case then you as an individual would certainly be acting rationally and in your own self interest and there is nothing wrong with that, save that the policy makers permitted or encouraged people by making it a possibility that you could be trained at taxpayers expense and then permitted to go work for a private contractor hired by the govt.... which is more expensive to taxpayers and so that doesn't make a whole lot sense from a financial standpoint. But the opportunity was there, you took advantage, you made out alright and sincerely good for you.


Point is... If you received benefit of the taxpayer, you should at least be a little gracious when judging others when they are in need of public benefit. Otherwise it simply looks like its OK if you receive the money but totally unacceptable when someone else receives it... and to me that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Hating welfare moms is irrational and in the total scheme of things a few people collecting welfare or having a few social programs are not going to bankrupt the system, if anything, the past few years has shown us what it takes to drives the country to bankruptcy.

nope, you have not hit a nerve, I let you reel out as much rope as you need to prove yourself desperate for an argument. Like I said, even your orginal backers have abandoned your ass for more sane ground. Try re-selling your bullshit to them first, then get back with me.

I have no problem with the govt. payig for the education or training, as long as it gets paid back in money or service.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-08 14:27:37)

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

yes this is it, it has nothing to do with the fact that these were the only ones available.

I guess you didn't google or wiki Armenia then?

It is a conservative christian state runned by a dictorial democratic elected president

nope I didn't, I don't give a shit. If the colors available in this forum were green purple and orange that is what you would be seeing.

Oh I see, well then I was wrong

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

nope I didn't, I don't give a shit. If the colors available in this forum were green purple and orange that is what you would be seeing.

Oh I see, well then I was wrong

Too slow!

More text tbh ...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Too slow!

Longer sentence tbh ...

I had to redo it. It wouldn't submit the first time

Me 2