What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

Clearly, you can't make up your mind. First you say you are against welfare based on need (FYI: based on need is not based on work), then you say you are for welfare based on need if they really need it. Uhm... hello! Anyone in there? Adding the adjective "really" for emphasis does not change the fact that you are caving in to welfare based on need, in translation, you are paying people to not work if they really need it.

The definition of "really needing help in this country" is you don't have a job. So quit your job and we'll pay you to stay out of work. As far as extra bonus checks such as for disability, most of the people on disability are scamming the system. Note: I don't count people who are collecting insurance for injuries encountered on the job the same as people who are collecting disability from our government for social and behavioral problems they are not insured for. I don't care how much people need help, our government should not be used as a charity organization. Leave charity to charities. Charity should be voluntary not done at the point of a gun through government re-distributions.

You have habit of making accusations without showing a quote to back it up. If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

I highlighted it in bold. You said you hate paying people to not work. It is in bold.

Your accusation that paraplegic people can't work therefore should go on the public dime is just plain stupid.

1. Are you weird or something ? You haven't shown where I said I hate paying people to not work. In fact, I never used the words > "paying people to not work", except when questioning you about those goofy words. I don't think there is any such thing as that. And where it was originally said that way, you said it, not me. It all came from your words.

2. I did not make an "accusation" that paraplegic people can't work. I didn't say that. You said that. I said HYPOTHETICALLY >>> IF one was paralyzed from the neck down (BTW that means QUADreplegic), and couldn't work.

So, since you couldn't get it right the first time, let's go over it again. Suppose you got into a car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down. ANd suppose you couldn't work, and couldn't take care of your self without help. And (certainly) your insurance company drops you like a hot potato, the minute they find out about your new condition, which would now require huge amounts of their money for you persona//medical care 24/7. OH. Then what ? That's rhetorical question. I'll answer it for you. With a govt healthcare system (who's there for your need, not profit), you're covered and OK. Without that govt healthcare system, and having only your private insurer (who's there for profit, not your need) you're SCREWED. Get it ?

Lastly, I ask you again >> If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

 

[protectionist]

We should encourage more science, infrastructure, r@D and education instead of welfare. Oh you want the poor to be fucked.

We should spend our money, as individuals, on the things we value. If you like science, infrastructure, R&D and education, you should definitely spend your money on those things. The problem is that we try to use government to force investment in the things we value on others who might not agree. Government shouldn't have the power to override our personal economic decisions.

What you're saying is you're opposed to majority rule (AKA democracy). As such, you might have 2 choices. You could move to a dictatorship, or you could find a cabin in a remote location (Northern Canada maybe) and live there, away from society entirely.

 

[dblack]

We should encourage more science, infrastructure, r@D and education instead of welfare. Oh you want the poor to be fucked.

We should spend our money, as individuals, on the things we value. If you like science, infrastructure, R&D and education, you should definitely spend your money on those things. The problem is that we try to use government to force investment in the things we value on others who might not agree. Government shouldn't have the power to override our personal economic decisions.

What you're saying is you're opposed to majority rule (AKA democracy).

No, that's not what I'm saying. I actually prefer democracy to autocracy. But I'm opposed to unlimited government, regardless of how decisions are made.

 

[protectionist]

We should spend our money, as individuals, on the things we value. If you like science, infrastructure, R&D and education, you should definitely spend your money on those things. The problem is that we try to use government to force investment in the things we value on others who might not agree. Government shouldn't have the power to override our personal economic decisions.

What you're saying is you're opposed to majority rule (AKA democracy).

No, that's not what I'm saying. I actually prefer democracy to autocracy. But I'm opposed to unlimited government, regardless of how decisions are made.

But the US govt is not unlimited. There are checks and balances. There are different levels of govt. Local, state, national. And within the national govt, there are 3 branches which offset each other > executive, legislative, and judicial.

 

[dblack]

What you're saying is you're opposed to majority rule (AKA democracy).

No, that's not what I'm saying. I actually prefer democracy to autocracy. But I'm opposed to unlimited government, regardless of how decisions are made.

But the US govt is not unlimited. There are checks and balances. There are different levels of govt. Local, state, national. And within the national govt, there are 3 branches which offset each other > executive, legislative, and judicial.

If it isn't obvious to you by now, I think it should much more limited than you do.

It's just a different philosophy of government. I want a government that maximizes the freedom of each of us to define our own vision of the good life and pursue it; not one that one that defines the good life and then pushes us all, collectively, toward the same goals.

 

[Bumberclyde]

What Is Wrong With America ?

Not enough guns.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have habit of making accusations without showing a quote to back it up. If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

I highlighted it in bold. You said you hate paying people to not work. It is in bold.

Your accusation that paraplegic people can't work therefore should go on the public dime is just plain stupid.

1. Are you weird or something ? You haven't shown where I said I hate paying people to not work. In fact, I never used the words > "paying people to not work", except when questioning you about those goofy words. I don't think there is any such thing as that. And where it was originally said that way, you said it, not me. It all came from your words.

2. I did not make an "accusation" that paraplegic people can't work. I didn't say that. You said that. I said HYPOTHETICALLY >>> IF one was paralyzed from the neck down (BTW that means QUADreplegic), and couldn't work.

So, since you couldn't get it right the first time, let's go over it again. Suppose you got into a car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down. ANd suppose you couldn't work, and couldn't take care of your self without help. And (certainly) your insurance company drops you like a hot potato, the minute they find out about your new condition, which would now require huge amounts of their money for you persona//medical care 24/7. OH. Then what ? That's rhetorical question. I'll answer it for you. With a govt healthcare system (who's there for your need, not profit), you're covered and OK. Without that govt healthcare system, and having only your private insurer (who's there for profit, not your need) you're SCREWED. Get it ?

Lastly, I ask you again >> If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

Now you are making up lies that we only pay welfare to quadriplegics and illegals. WTF is wrong with you? And you most certainly have said everything I said you said. I frigging quoted you with bold text above.. YOUR WORDS IN BOLD. I'm not gonna cite you again, I already did, twice.

No I would not be screwed. My family does not need government help, not for anything.

 

[protectionist]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I actually prefer democracy to autocracy. But I'm opposed to unlimited government, regardless of how decisions are made.

But the US govt is not unlimited. There are checks and balances. There are different levels of govt. Local, state, national. And within the national govt, there are 3 branches which offset each other > executive, legislative, and judicial.

If it isn't obvious to you by now, I think it should much more limited than you do.

It's just a different philosophy of government. I want a government that maximizes the freedom of each of us to define our own vision of the good life and pursue it; not one that one that defines the good life and then pushes us all, collectively, toward the same goals.

You speak of "government" as if it was an unprogrammed entity, or brainless machine that spews out policies. The policies come from the people, so as to make life better for themselves. THEY define the good life (as it should be), not some vested interest interested only in what good for THEM in particular.

 

[protectionist]

I highlighted it in bold. You said you hate paying people to not work. It is in bold.

Your accusation that paraplegic people can't work therefore should go on the public dime is just plain stupid.

1. Are you weird or something ? You haven't shown where I said I hate paying people to not work. In fact, I never used the words > "paying people to not work", except when questioning you about those goofy words. I don't think there is any such thing as that. And where it was originally said that way, you said it, not me. It all came from your words.

2. I did not make an "accusation" that paraplegic people can't work. I didn't say that. You said that. I said HYPOTHETICALLY >>> IF one was paralyzed from the neck down (BTW that means QUADreplegic), and couldn't work.

So, since you couldn't get it right the first time, let's go over it again. Suppose you got into a car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down. ANd suppose you couldn't work, and couldn't take care of your self without help. And (certainly) your insurance company drops you like a hot potato, the minute they find out about your new condition, which would now require huge amounts of their money for you persona//medical care 24/7. OH. Then what ? That's rhetorical question. I'll answer it for you. With a govt healthcare system (who's there for your need, not profit), you're covered and OK. Without that govt healthcare system, and having only your private insurer (who's there for profit, not your need) you're SCREWED. Get it ?

Lastly, I ask you again >> If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

Now you are making up lies that we only pay welfare to quadriplegics and illegals. WTF is wrong with you? And you most certainly have said everything I said you said. I frigging quoted you with bold text above.. YOUR WORDS IN BOLD. I'm not gonna cite you again, I already did, twice.

No I would not be screwed. My family does not need government help, not for anything.

Shut up, fool! You keep trying to put words in my mouth. You're an idiot who I shouldn't even be wasted my time talking to. NO, I did NOT say "we only pay welfare to quadriplegics and illegals." YOU said that. How the hell do you keep coming up with these weird things ? Are you weird ? I most certainly did not say the things you said I said, now get the hell off my ass, you clown!! I don't give a damn what you quoted or bolded . Your words are utter nonsense, and you're either insane or a complete cretin.

 

[antanasantrasis]

America needs changes...

 

[dblack]

But the US govt is not unlimited. There are checks and balances. There are different levels of govt. Local, state, national. And within the national govt, there are 3 branches which offset each other > executive, legislative, and judicial.

If it isn't obvious to you by now, I think it should much more limited than you do.

It's just a different philosophy of government. I want a government that maximizes the freedom of each of us to define our own vision of the good life and pursue it; not one that one that defines the good life and then pushes us all, collectively, toward the same goals.

You speak of "government" as if it was an unprogrammed entity, or brainless machine that spews out policies. The policies come from the people, so as to make life better for themselves. THEY define the good life (as it should be), not some vested interest interested only in what good for THEM in particular.

This is definitely where our views of government diverge. I don't think of government as a brainless machine, but it is a tool for forcing conformity - and should be used only when conformity is truly necessary. Everyone has a different vision of the 'good life' and we should be free to pursue it free from state coercion.

 

[protectionist]

If it isn't obvious to you by now, I think it should much more limited than you do.

It's just a different philosophy of government. I want a government that maximizes the freedom of each of us to define our own vision of the good life and pursue it; not one that one that defines the good life and then pushes us all, collectively, toward the same goals.

You speak of "government" as if it was an unprogrammed entity, or brainless machine that spews out policies. The policies come from the people, so as to make life better for themselves. THEY define the good life (as it should be), not some vested interest interested only in what good for THEM in particular.

This is definitely where our views of government diverge. I don't think of government as a brainless machine, but it is a tool for forcing conformity - and should be used only when conformity is truly necessary. Everyone has a different vision of the 'good life' and we should be free to pursue it free from state coercion.

We can't be free from state coercion (keeping in mind that, theoretically at least, WE are the state) as we are subject to the LAWS of all our "states" local, state & national). We coerce ourselves, and each other, and without this, we would have bloody chaos.

 

[dblack]

You speak of "government" as if it was an unprogrammed entity, or brainless machine that spews out policies. The policies come from the people, so as to make life better for themselves. THEY define the good life (as it should be), not some vested interest interested only in what good for THEM in particular.

This is definitely where our views of government diverge. I don't think of government as a brainless machine, but it is a tool for forcing conformity - and should be used only when conformity is truly necessary. Everyone has a different vision of the 'good life' and we should be free to pursue it free from state coercion.

We can't be free from state coercion (keeping in mind that, theoretically at least, WE are the state) as we are subject to the LAWS of all our "states" local, state & national). We coerce ourselves, and each other, and without this, we would have bloody chaos.

Once again, you're misrepresenting my view. I'm not saying we can, or should, be completely free of state coercion. I'm saying it should only be used when necessary. There's no need for all of us to be pursuing the same goals. Government should protect our freedom to pursue our own goals, not dictate to us what they should be.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Liberals

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you're saying is you're opposed to majority rule (AKA democracy). As such, you might have 2 choices. You could move to a dictatorship, or you could find a cabin in a remote location (Northern Canada maybe) and live there, away from society entirely.

My favorite mis-attributed quote is "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch." Generally this gets attributed to Ben Franklin, it's actually from James Bovard.

Democracy is nothing but mob rule. A civil society must have protection for the minority interests.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Meth is too cheap.

 

[Avatar4321]

We can't be free from state coercion (keeping in mind that, theoretically at least, WE are the state) as we are subject to the LAWS of all our "states" local, state & national). We coerce ourselves, and each other, and without this, we would have bloody chaos.

But we are not the state. We simply authorize it to act for our benefit. There are times (in fact, quite frequently) that the state ignores the people and oppresses them. If it didn't we would still be part of Great Britain.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Being overrun by beaners and mormons.

 

[Avatar4321]

Being overrun by beaners and mormons.

Give the Book of Mormon a chance and read it and you might be surprised and become one.

 

[RKMBrown]

What gives you the idea that I can't discern that difference? And why are you talking to me about paying people to not work ? Did I ever say I liked that idea ? Fact is, I hate it, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so adamant against illegal immigration (have you been reading this thread ?)

As for paying people based on need, I don't see that as an issue of conservative vs liberal, as long as the needy people getting the $$ really need it, can't help themselves, and are AMERICANS. If you have a gripe with that, then just wait until YOU become one of them someday, and then you can talk. See Post # 890 (first paragraph).

As for me lying about being a conservative, HA HA. That's a good one. The liberals in this forum whom I've been fighting tooth and nail in my other OPS, must be gagging right about now, having heard you say that. LOL.

I don't think I've ever met someone as stupid as you. But I'll try one more time.

You stated, "What gives you the idea that I can't discern that difference?"

Your sentence not mine.

Your sentence is a question. The question pertains to whether or not you can discern. I have my doubts.

Next you stated "And why are you talking to me about paying people to not work ?"

Your sentence not mine.

Here you ask yet another question this time indicating you can't discern what paying people to not work means, this phrase appears to confuse the hell out of you. When we pay people people based on need, particularly based on need measured by the fact that they don't have income, we are not paying them as a reward for work provided, more particularly we are paying them to not work. It is paying them to not work because if they were working they would not pass the means test for collecting welfare. Thus we are in fact paying people to not work. I'm not sure why you lack the faculty to understand this very simple phrase. But we continue.

Then you stated "Did I ever say I liked that idea ?"

Your sentence not mine.

Here, you appear to indicate that even though you don't understand why the phrase was used or what it means, you deny stating that you ever liked the idea.

Then you stated "Fact is, I hate it."

Your phrase not mine.

So now you say you hate it, it being paying people to not work. This is the phrase you later denied three times ever having made. Odd how you make the statement then deny it again and again and again.

Then you stated, "As for paying people based on need, I don't see that as an issue of conservative vs liberal, as long as the needy people getting the $$ really need it, can't help themselves, and are AMERICANS."

Your statement not mine.

In this statement you are clearly stating that you don't see the issue of people getting money based on need if they really need it (and they are American). This being the complete opposite of the phrase you deny above. First you hate it, then you are ok with it if they really need it.

Again, you appear to be really swayed by the adjective "really."