Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2009-12-21 20:44:10
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6417|North Tonawanda, NY

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Whoa there.  You should stay put and pay your dues.  Oh wait.  Unfair taxing up in yer neck of the woods?  See you don't care about paying for abortion, but obviously there are other things you don't think government should pay for and are even going to move to avoid it.  So where do I move to?  This idiocy is on the federal level..
If you read back, I never once said that the federal money should pay for abortions.  Tell the government how you feel about being taxed.  As soon as I can, I will let NY know by leaving.  Screw this overgrown bureaucracy and their nickel-and-dime solution to everything.  I wanted to leave the moment Patterson wanted to tax haircuts.  What the heck is with that?

I would pay my fair share without a problem--if it were done responsibly.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

STN wrote:

OK.  I don't like paying for a lot of social services, especially in this great state of New York.  They are expensive and only make people depend on the state for everything.  That is wrong.
True true.  And that is exactly what I fear will happen here.  I think abortions will be utilized a bit more like the pill.
Make people pay for their own.  You make the mistake, you pay for it.  None of this forced sterilization crap.  Perhaps if federal dollars do pay for abortion, limit the number of times people can use that benefit.  It covers the single 'oopsies' and makes the serial aborters pay for their own.  It is elective in the cases you are worried about, and perhaps elective procedures shouldn't be paid for by the feds anyway.  I don't like how just about any branch of government spends tax money, so maybe I've just become indifferent to just another case of it.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Those same kids going to be taxed paying for your old retirement.
I'll save for my own retirement, thank-you-very-much!  I don't want the children of tomorrow to pay my way through life--I think borrowing (err, stealing) from tomorrow's children is disgusting.  If people expect the average household to maintain a balanced budget, shouldn't we expect the same from our government?  I make shit money, but I somehow manage to pay all of my bills without living in increasing debt.  Why can't NY?  Or the Feds?

Ok, I got myself off track bitching about the government.  Sorry guys!  :p

Last edited by SenorToenails (2009-12-21 20:49:02)

2009-12-21 20:50:32
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

SenorToenails wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Whoa there.  You should stay put and pay your dues.  Oh wait.  Unfair taxing up in yer neck of the woods?  See you don't care about paying for abortion, but obviously there are other things you don't think government should pay for and are even going to move to avoid it.  So where do I move to?  This idiocy is on the federal level..
If you read back, I never once said that the federal money should pay for abortions.  Tell the government how you feel about being taxed.  As soon as I can, I will let NY know by leaving.  Screw this overgrown bureaucracy and their nickel-and-dime solution to everything.  I wanted to leave the moment Patterson wanted to tax haircuts.  What the heck is with that?

I would pay my fair share without a problem--if it were done responsibly.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

STN wrote:

OK.  I don't like paying for a lot of social services, especially in this great state of New York.  They are expensive and only make people depend on the state for everything.  That is wrong.
True true.  And that is exactly what I fear will happen here.  I think abortions will be utilized a bit more like the pill.
Make people pay for their own.  You make the mistake, you pay for it.  None of this forced sterilization crap.  Perhaps if federal dollars do pay for abortion, limit the number of times people can use that benefit.  It covers the single 'oopsies' and makes the serial aborters pay for their own.  It is elective in the cases you are worried about, and perhaps elective procedures shouldn't be paid for by the feds anyway.  I don't like how just about any branch of government spends tax money, so maybe I've just become indifferent to just another case of it.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Those same kids going to be taxed paying for your old retirement.
I'll save for my own retirement, thank-you-very-much!  I don't want the children of tomorrow to pay my way through life--I think borrowing (err, stealing) from tomorrow's children is disgusting.  If people expect the average household to maintain a balanced budget, shouldn't we expect the same from our government?  I make shit money, but I somehow manage to pay all of my bills without living in increasing debt.  Why can't NY?  Or the Feds?

Ok, I got myself off track bitching about the government.  Sorry guys!  :p
Lol, remember this?

ALBANY—As expected, David Paterson's proposed budget doesn't reduce the budget gap with, say, an increase on income tax on the wealthy, but raises fees and taxes on a veritable potpourri services and goods.

A sample:

-- The sales tax will be extended to movie tickets and sporting events. If ticker issuers already use the existing rate, that's another four percents.

--Sales tax will be levied on taxis and limos.

-- You'll also have to pay sales tax on cable or satellite TV and radio.

-- The tax per cigar will rise 16 cents.

-- Malt liquors like Olde English, Zima and Smirnoff Ice will be taxed in the same way as other alcoholic beverages. The taxes for beer and wine will both more than double to 51 cents per gallon of wine and cents 24 cents per gallon of beer.

-- iTunes, too. State and local sales taxes will be extended to "digital property," which includes "digital audio, audio-visual and text files."

-- A $50 fee is proposed for a four-page packet of forms used by driving schools in drivers education.

-- You used to be able to buy clothes under $110 tax free. Now, those sales taxes will be restored for all but two weeks, when clothing and shoes under $500 will be tax free.

-- Sodas and other fruit drinks containing less than 70 percent real fruit juice will be taxed at 18 percent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-21 20:56:07
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6417|North Tonawanda, NY

JohnG@lt wrote:

Lol, remember this?

ALBANY—As expected, David Paterson's proposed budget doesn't reduce the budget gap with, say, an increase on income tax on the wealthy, but raises fees and taxes on a veritable potpourri services and goods.

A sample:

-- The sales tax will be extended to movie tickets and sporting events. If ticker issuers already use the existing rate, that's another four percents.

--Sales tax will be levied on taxis and limos.

-- You'll also have to pay sales tax on cable or satellite TV and radio.

-- The tax per cigar will rise 16 cents.

-- Malt liquors like Olde English, Zima and Smirnoff Ice will be taxed in the same way as other alcoholic beverages. The taxes for beer and wine will both more than double to 51 cents per gallon of wine and cents 24 cents per gallon of beer.

-- iTunes, too. State and local sales taxes will be extended to "digital property," which includes "digital audio, audio-visual and text files."

-- A $50 fee is proposed for a four-page packet of forms used by driving schools in drivers education.

-- You used to be able to buy clothes under $110 tax free. Now, those sales taxes will be restored for all but two weeks, when clothing and shoes under $500 will be tax free.

-- Sodas and other fruit drinks containing less than 70 percent real fruit juice will be taxed at 18 percent.
NoooOOOOooooOO!  Flashbacks!!!

I loathe this state.  In a time when everyone just wants to get hammered and forget about the asshats in Albany, they decided to raise taxes on beer and liquor.  Thanks for nothing!
2009-12-21 21:27:04
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

DBBrinson1 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

I don't get how the same person that is against capital punishment can be all for killing unborn babies. Sounds ass backwards to me.
and, the inverse too - how if someone's against abortion, how they can be for capital punishment.
The baby did nothing except come into existence.  A criminal on death row?  There is a difference.
The 'baby' is nothing but a collection of cells, it is not 'alive', it is nothing but a parasite. The courts get things wrong all too often, until the legal system is infallible then capital punishment should never be an option.

Stubbee wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

burnzz wrote:


and, the inverse too - how if someone's against abortion, how they can be for capital punishment.
The baby did nothing except come into existence.  A criminal on death row?  There is a difference.
when does existence start for a fetus?
Birth.

JohnG@lt wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You willing to personally adopt their offspring then or pay for the upkeep of orphanages? Frankly, the kids that would come out of a home where the parents would've aborted their kid if they could afford it, don't really have a happy future ahead of them. Who has abortions? Poor people mostly, or people who would become poor if they had a kid. What do kids of poor parents generally grow up to be? Poor people themselves.
No & Yes I donate to charities.  Where's your statistic on the comparison?  Besides you are comparing a murdered non-existence to an imaginary future.  How about in order to have the abortion, they have to get fixed as a stipulation?  My tax money right?  One and done.  You don't want kids?  Fine.  I'd just like to know when does one's sense of personal responsibility kick in?
I thought about that last night when this topic was started. I wouldn't be opposed in the slightest to forced sterilization if you have an abortion.
So some 15 year old gets pregnant from messing around and doesn't want or need the responsibility of birth and motherhood while still growing up herself, you want to deny her the the possibility of becoming a mother when she has matured and is in a much better financial position to look after a child?

SenorToenails wrote:

the moment Patterson wanted to tax haircuts.  What the heck is with that?
What's the problem with taxing haircuts?
2009-12-21 21:57:08
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6417|North Tonawanda, NY

DrunkFace wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

the moment Patterson wanted to tax haircuts.  What the heck is with that?
What's the problem with taxing haircuts?
In conjunction with all the other taxes, fees and cheap money-grabs, putting a special tax on haircuts was nothing but complete bullshit.

Instead of cutting the budget and perhaps reducing the availability of 'free' services that the state offers, they go find some other way to fund their garbage.
2009-12-21 21:57:35
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6835|San Diego, CA, USA

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cheaper than funding orphanages.
Crime rate drops too.
So are you suggesting to kill all the liberals?
2009-12-21 22:01:00
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Harmor wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cheaper than funding orphanages.
Crime rate drops too.
So are you suggesting to kill all the liberals?
That would be cheaper than paying for their abortions. .223 round is about $0.30 each
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 00:56:43
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Harmor wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cheaper than funding orphanages.
Crime rate drops too.
So are you suggesting to kill all the liberals?
It is funny that American liberals are the extremely lazy. Since the constitution itself is based on true liberal ideas aka self reliance, all men are good, freedom of speech etc

But yes it would be cheaper if we start removing fucking parasites from the welfare system. It would make the country stronger too.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-12-22 04:58:23
13rin
Member
+977|6766
Dealbreaker?

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-12-22 05:10:47)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-12-22 05:46:24
jord
Member
+2,382|6965|The North, beyond the wall.
As above, it's obviously less taxing(lawl) on the financial system than to fund social programs, welfare, prisons, trials, etc. Everyone has something they don't like their tax money paying for, tough shit. Either find a way around the system or take it on the chin, because the Governments are gonna do what they have to either way.

And holy shit is Turq back?
2009-12-22 08:00:20
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Crime rate drops too.
So are you suggesting to kill all the liberals?
It is funny that American liberals are the extremely lazy. Since the constitution itself is based on true liberal ideas aka self reliance, all men are good, freedom of speech etc

But yes it would be cheaper if we start removing fucking parasites from the welfare system. It would make the country stronger too.
It's because they've usurped the name. In the US, being a liberal means kowtowing to the most restrictive social and economic systems ever devised by man. There's absolutely nothing liberal about populism, democracy, socialism and protectionism. The only reason they call themselves liberals is because it appeals to the artists in the party to think of themselves as free thinking (even though 99.9% of artists are hacks).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 09:19:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Harmor wrote:


So are you suggesting to kill all the liberals?
It is funny that American liberals are the extremely lazy. Since the constitution itself is based on true liberal ideas aka self reliance, all men are good, freedom of speech etc

But yes it would be cheaper if we start removing fucking parasites from the welfare system. It would make the country stronger too.
It's because they've usurped the name. In the US, being a liberal means kowtowing to the most restrictive social and economic systems ever devised by man. There's absolutely nothing liberal about populism, democracy, socialism and protectionism. The only reason they call themselves liberals is because it appeals to the artists in the party to think of themselves as free thinking (even though 99.9% of artists are hacks).
Not really.  It was liberals that ended slavery (Lincoln was a liberal and so was the GOP at the time).  It was liberals that gave women the right to vote.  It was liberals that ended segregation.

Just because the parties have switched sides regarding social liberalism, it doesn't make liberalism any less relevant to our system.  The same people you're criticizing still believe in liberal ideas that are related to our founding as a free society.

Thomas Paine was a liberal who pushed for progressive taxation and socialized education, for example.

So while Libertarianism still has much in common with our country's founding principles, so does modern liberalism.  Conservatism in the form of federalism also does.
2009-12-22 09:39:28
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

It is funny that American liberals are the extremely lazy. Since the constitution itself is based on true liberal ideas aka self reliance, all men are good, freedom of speech etc

But yes it would be cheaper if we start removing fucking parasites from the welfare system. It would make the country stronger too.
It's because they've usurped the name. In the US, being a liberal means kowtowing to the most restrictive social and economic systems ever devised by man. There's absolutely nothing liberal about populism, democracy, socialism and protectionism. The only reason they call themselves liberals is because it appeals to the artists in the party to think of themselves as free thinking (even though 99.9% of artists are hacks).
Not really.  It was liberals that ended slavery (Lincoln was a liberal and so was the GOP at the time).  It was liberals that gave women the right to vote.  It was liberals that ended segregation.

Just because the parties have switched sides regarding social liberalism, it doesn't make liberalism any less relevant to our system.  The same people you're criticizing still believe in liberal ideas that are related to our founding as a free society.

Thomas Paine was a liberal who pushed for progressive taxation and socialized education, for example.

So while Libertarianism still has much in common with our country's founding principles, so does modern liberalism.  Conservatism in the form of federalism also does.
Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to our country's founding principles. Modern liberalism is the bane of freedom. Installing a stronger central government at every opportunity at the cost of personal freedom is not liberal in the slightest.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Don't even attempt to place Libertarians and Liberals in the same category.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-22 09:41:23)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 10:06:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Honestly, this debate was about me paying for an abortions that taxpayers shouldn't have to.  Whether your GF has an abortion or 50 of them -I don't care, kill your kids... I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Ultimately it makes no difference to you - it's just public spending. The cost of the abortion is going to be a lot less than the average financial burden on the state of the children.
2009-12-22 10:13:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to our country's founding principles. Modern liberalism is the bane of freedom. Installing a stronger central government at every opportunity at the cost of personal freedom is not liberal in the slightest.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Don't even attempt to place Libertarians and Liberals in the same category.
Modern liberalism supports a stronger fed to protect minority rights -- that's not exactly the bane of freedom.

I've got another quote for you...

"Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism." -- Earl Warren, Supreme Court Chief Justice

Liberals and Libertarians have many social views in common whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Either way, Warren concisely points out that "socialism" is usually just a word used in America to demonize policies that help society overall.  It's generally a positive word in most First World societies.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-12-22 10:15:17)

2009-12-22 10:16:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to our country's founding principles. Modern liberalism is the bane of freedom. Installing a stronger central government at every opportunity at the cost of personal freedom is not liberal in the slightest.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Don't even attempt to place Libertarians and Liberals in the same category.
Modern liberalism supports a stronger fed to protect minority rights -- that's not exactly the bane of freedom.

I've got another quote for you...

"Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism." -- Earl Warren, Supreme Court Chief Justice

Liberals and Libertarians have many social views in common whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Either way, Warren concisely points out that "socialism" is usually just a word used in America to demonize policies that help society overall.  It's generally a positive word in most First World societies.
Social views in common, absolutely. Our views on using government to achieve those views are completely opposite.

Believe what you want. Every single social program enacted limited freedom of choice. Liberals are really no different from Conservatives in this country on social matters. The fights are different but they're both trying to force their view on everyone else.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-22 10:17:49)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 10:18:05
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to our country's founding principles. Modern liberalism is the bane of freedom. Installing a stronger central government at every opportunity at the cost of personal freedom is not liberal in the slightest.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Don't even attempt to place Libertarians and Liberals in the same category.
Modern liberalism supports a stronger fed to protect minority rights -- that's not exactly the bane of freedom.

I've got another quote for you...

"Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism." -- Earl Warren, Supreme Court Chief Justice

Liberals and Libertarians have many social views in common whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Either way, Warren concisely points out that "socialism" is usually just a word used to demonize policies that help society overall.  It's generally a positive word in most First World societies.
Modern Liberalism is an American misnomer.

Modern Liberalism is actually the sort of ideas being pushed by people like Locke.

Seems a strange concept that socialist principles in the US are just relabelled as being "liberal".
2009-12-22 10:20:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to our country's founding principles. Modern liberalism is the bane of freedom. Installing a stronger central government at every opportunity at the cost of personal freedom is not liberal in the slightest.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Don't even attempt to place Libertarians and Liberals in the same category.
Modern liberalism supports a stronger fed to protect minority rights -- that's not exactly the bane of freedom.

I've got another quote for you...

"Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism." -- Earl Warren, Supreme Court Chief Justice

Liberals and Libertarians have many social views in common whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Either way, Warren concisely points out that "socialism" is usually just a word used in America to demonize policies that help society overall.  It's generally a positive word in most First World societies.
Social views in common, absolutely. Our views on using government to achieve those views are completely opposite.

Believe what you want. Every single social program enacted limited freedom of choice. Liberals are really no different from Conservatives in this country on social matters. The fights are different but they're both trying to force their view on everyone else.
Social cohesion requires a certain amount of conformity.  There are practical limits to freedom, and those are implemented by both liberals and conservatives.  Libertarianism is a good basis for freedom, but all of these ideas must meet in the middle for society to work.

This, essentially, is why moderation is ultimately the best way to go.
2009-12-22 10:26:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Modern liberalism supports a stronger fed to protect minority rights -- that's not exactly the bane of freedom.

I've got another quote for you...

"Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism." -- Earl Warren, Supreme Court Chief Justice

Liberals and Libertarians have many social views in common whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Either way, Warren concisely points out that "socialism" is usually just a word used in America to demonize policies that help society overall.  It's generally a positive word in most First World societies.
Social views in common, absolutely. Our views on using government to achieve those views are completely opposite.

Believe what you want. Every single social program enacted limited freedom of choice. Liberals are really no different from Conservatives in this country on social matters. The fights are different but they're both trying to force their view on everyone else.
Social cohesion requires a certain amount of conformity.  There are practical limits to freedom, and those are implemented by both liberals and conservatives.  Libertarianism is a good basis for freedom, but all of these ideas must meet in the middle for society to work.

This, essentially, is why moderation is ultimately the best way to go.
You're a fool if you really believe that. The only limitations required are laws protecting one individual from the action of another. No, this doesn't mean writing anti-discrimination legislation, this means implementing laws as simple as don't commit murder, don't steal etc. Your problem is you think everyone is stupid and incapable of running their own lives. They don't need or want your help.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 10:37:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 16:49:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're a fool if you really believe that. The only limitations required are laws protecting one individual from the action of another. No, this doesn't mean writing anti-discrimination legislation, this means implementing laws as simple as don't commit murder, don't steal etc. Your problem is you think everyone is stupid and incapable of running their own lives. They don't need or want your help.
You're a fool if you believe that anti-discrimination legislation isn't necessary.  Try reading about the Civil Rights Movement and what it had to resist, since you're apparently ignorant of it.

I don't think everyone is stupid, but I do think people who ignore history in favor of clinging to dogmatic ideals are.
2009-12-22 18:03:49
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're a fool if you really believe that. The only limitations required are laws protecting one individual from the action of another. No, this doesn't mean writing anti-discrimination legislation, this means implementing laws as simple as don't commit murder, don't steal etc. Your problem is you think everyone is stupid and incapable of running their own lives. They don't need or want your help.
You're a fool if you believe that anti-discrimination legislation isn't necessary.  Try reading about the Civil Rights Movement and what it had to resist, since you're apparently ignorant of it.

I don't think everyone is stupid, but I do think people who ignore history in favor of clinging to dogmatic ideals are.
I am neither ignoring history, nor clinging to dogmatic ideals. On the contrary, I am a student of history and the early foundation of our country is the only government that has ever been worthy of praise. Our current government is a farce.

The only laws a society requires punish murder, rape, assault, fraud, theft and protect the sanctity of contracts (property rights especially). Anything else is fluff. Civil rights laws weren't required. The people affected by discrimination could've moved elsewhere and that would've hurt the discriminators where it really matters, in their pocketbooks.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-22 18:08:26
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6918|949

JohnG@lt wrote:

The people affected by discrimination could've moved elsewhere and that would've hurt the discriminators where it really matters, in their pocketbooks.
Haha except they couldn't...you know, because they were slaves?
2009-12-22 18:14:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The people affected by discrimination could've moved elsewhere and that would've hurt the discriminators where it really matters, in their pocketbooks.
Haha except they couldn't...you know, because they were slaves?
That's a different topic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-23 06:32:07
13rin
Member
+977|6766
What is this slavery red herring crap?  BTW Lincoln was a Republican...

Anyhoo....

Hopefully this will cause ripples.  Figures, this self proclaimed "transparent" administration would try to silence him.  For shame.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard