Trans Ladyboy Forum

Go Back Trans Ladyboy Forum > General Discussion
Register Forum Rules Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Bookmark & Share

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-09-2010
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
You're right. I'd rather have a sinus infection than a cracked engine block. Yes some medical problems are more serious, but many are not.
@AngryPostman: It is hardly the same principle. That is exactly what my comment was meant to demonstrate. That is to say: there is no real misery when a hunk of metal with wheels you use to move around breaks down. If, however, your wife or boyfriend or friend becomes sickly, dangerously so, there is misery. We shouldn't profit from misery. It reminds me of funeral parlors goading patrons into buying extravagant coffins and who knows what else for their dead family, using the heightened emotions of the patrons against them.

Tracy: healthcare is about whatever serious health problems you may develop, not about something as easily dealt with as a sinus infection. You make light of health problems. Why? So as to avoid the matter of profiting from misery?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-09-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
I get my insurance through my job, thank you very much.
Well, aren't you the lucky one. Not everyone has such good fortune. But of course, this is America -- the one highly developed nation in the world where "social solidarity" is not just nearly non-existent, but where its opposite is taught to you from your first days in school. So, while we are all foolishly chasing the false "American dream" we've been taught about, and believing that the only righteous thing is to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," the rest of the developed world is surpassing the United States in every single category of social good, from literacy rates to birth rates to public transportation to educational achievement in math and science to ... the list is too endless for this site.

That crap we Americans were taught in school about individualism and making your own way and so on -- that serves a political and, more important, an economic purpose for those with the financial means -- in this country these days, typically acquired through economic activity that serves absolutely no productive purpose -- so that they never have to worry about paying for healthcare or relying on public transit or going to a decent public school or ... well, again, the list is too endless for this site.

When I was in Paris once, I came upon a group of about 30 people protesting outside a neighborhood daycare center early one morning. The government was discussing cutting back the funding for the creche. I spoke with nearly everyone there, and I could find only 5 people who had kids in the daycare center. All the rest were there because they realized that everyone in France benefited from public-funded daycare, and that their neighbors -- and hence their neighborhood -- was enriched by the fact that the daycare center made it possible for some people to work where they might not otherwise be able to keep a job. When the saw the possibility of that benefit disappearing for a few, they realized that it would hurt them all.

Last edited by smc; 11-09-2010 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-09-2010
randolph's Avatar
randolph randolph is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: S. Calif.
Posts: 2,502
randolph is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Humanity

Very well said SMC, humanity is in short supply in the good old USA. The conservatives are under the delusion that we can have a great country consisting of a few rich people and the rest working for them. Its not unlike the South before the Civil War. One of these days we will wake up, I hope it will not be too late.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-09-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Well, aren't you the lucky one. Not everyone has such good fortune. But of course, this is America -- the one highly developed nation in the world where "social solidarity" is not just nearly non-existent, but where its opposite is taught to you from your first days in school.
Exactly. Theoretically this country is supposed to grant individual liberties. It's an experiment in government so at least there's one place on Earth you can go if individual liberty is what you seek. It's not for everyone so don't feel bad if it's not for you. If people are in a country that goes against their nature they hopefully can immigrate to another country. That's why immigrants come here. There are many other countries where you can work to support your fellow citizens or mooch off the work of others. btw... lower taxes on businesses and they will hire more people. Then more people get health insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
So, while we are all foolishly chasing the false "American dream" we've been taught about, and believing that the only righteous thing is to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," the rest of the developed world is surpassing the United States in every single category of social good, from literacy rates to birth rates to public transportation to educational achievement in math and science to ... the list is too endless for this site.
Thank America's religious fundamentalists for some of that. As for the high birth rates, no thank you. Who needs over population?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
That crap we Americans were taught in school about individualism and making your own way and so on -- that serves
... to make our people self sufficient and masters of their own destinies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
When I was in Paris once, I came upon a group of about 30 people protesting outside a neighborhood daycare center early one morning. The government was discussing cutting back the funding for the creche. I spoke with nearly everyone there, and I could find only 5 people who had kids in the daycare center. All the rest were there because they realized that everyone in France benefited from public-funded daycare, and that their neighbors -- and hence their neighborhood -- was enriched by the fact that the daycare center made it possible for some people to work where they might not otherwise be able to keep a job. When the saw the possibility of that benefit disappearing for a few, they realized that it would hurt them all.
Good example. Once you make people feel they're entitled to something you can't get rid of it. It becomes yet another expense that the government pays and burdens the population with through taxes, whether they have kids or not. The end result? A bloated out of control welfare state.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body

Last edited by TracyCoxx; 11-09-2010 at 10:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-09-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Good example. Once you make people feel they're entitled to something you can't get rid of it. It becomes yet another expense that the government pays and burdens the population with through taxes, whether they have kids or not. The end result? A bloated out of control welfare state.
I forgot to mention one other thing. The United States has the lowest percentage of citizens with passports of any developed country. Most Americans have never been outside of North America. I don't know about you, Tracy -- perhaps that doesn't apply in your case. But the point in general is that Americans presume to know how people in other countries feel, as you reveal in your response.

These people in France didn't feel burdened by taxes. People throughout Europe gladly pay for the social welfare systems they have. Denmark has enormously high taxes and, by nearly every scientific study, the most content and happy people in the developed world. Why? Because they enjoy lives absent from most of the financial stressors that make Americans unhappy (such as having to worry about paying for healthcare, or college, or whatever). The happiness of everyone around them turns into a generalized societal happiness.

No one in France I've ever spoken to thinks of things as "entitlements" the way you use the word. They think of what we call "entitlements" in the United States as willing purchases they and their society have made for the good of all. That's why they protest so vehemently against changes in the social welfare system pushed by the wealthy. It's because they realize that the "individual liberty" that so many in America think Americans possess can be a catchphrase for something quite insidious.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-09-2010
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

I see the way language plays here. Entitlement is a bad word, full of negative connotations. It draws the image of an unruly child holding his parents to the fire for something he doesn’t need yet keeps demanding. But the same could not be said of something like healtchcare. This is something people need. And if sacrifices must be made to give the people something as vital as that, then why not? This is not insidious. It is a matter of compassion for the fellow man.

Language. Politicians have a way of screwing with it, people will not necessarily notice. For example, I was watching the news the other day and a pundit tried to rebut something someone else said by calling what the man proposed “class warfare.” They were speaking of raising taxes on the wealthy. This, as anyone can see with enough time, is spin. It is using, manipulating, language. It poisons the well because of its violent tones. Yet the rich get richer and the poor get poorer—and I will not apologize for using such a clich?d sentence, for it is true and gets the point across. If anyone is waging “warfare” it is not the poor or the middle class waging war on the rich, but the other way around. It is a case of the victimizers making themselves out to be victims. It reminds me of opponents of same-sex marriage and all that good stuff claiming that same-sex couples do not deserve marriage because they are asking for “special” rights. When it is, in fact, the opponents who are obliquely asking for special rights since they wish for the ability to get married to be cordoned off only for heterosexual couples. In both cases those who claim “class warfare” is being waged against the rich or that same-sex couples are asking for “special” rights are manipulating language.

I remember wanting to tear at my scalp whenever I heard McCain spout his nonsense about “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.” Tracy, you were born, fed and bred in a country that has no sense of community. No sense of solidarity. It is every man for himself. The cowboy is a national symbol! But no one can live by oneself. No man is an island. It is an illusion. Are we individuals? Yes. But being an individual is not about “me, me, me, me.” It is about growing. It is about knowing oneself. And from there, knowing others and loving others and caring for others. In your country, growing emotionally and intellectually and expressing that love is too often cause for discomfort. I know this. I lived in the United States for five years and learned this lesson quite well. And I was hurt over and again because I knew I could not truly be myself with most of the populace. I had to live, so to speak, in the closet.

You live in tiny rooms, in insulated houses, in suburbs, where no one knows your name. Rather than in the light, outside, amongst friends and family on whom to depend and whom to love. To depend is not a bad thing. We need other people and we need help. It is the human condition. But in your country, to depend on anything is seen as a bad thing. And the powers that be depend on you thinking so, so that, as SMC put it, they never have to contribute. So that they never have to sacrifice. Living instead off us to an extent, in total disregard of everyone the rest of the time. The idea that they should never sacrifice or that they do no wrong, that they are the economic engine of your country and therefore deserve all they make, is an idea better left to disappear into the wind. A fiction, and quite a fiction it is. I do not like the near-reverent tones of many people when they speak of “the free market.” They sound like proselytizers. The invisible hand of the free market… Much like a god behind all, an invisible arbiter.

I do not know your background Tracy. But I cannot help thinking that you were well taken care of when you were younger. That your parents had the means for ___ (whatever means those were for whatever you needed). Yet that is not the case for everyone. It is easy to say things like “pulling by one’s bootstraps” when you do have bootstraps and they are fine leather or some other material whose integrity has not been compromised. It is another when you are poor and live in a terrible neighborhood. It is not so easy to move up socially. It can take generations, when it could be made to much easier. Why shouldn’t we have such things as national healthcare where all are covered, and people need not worry about how to pay for college, and instead need only prepare the boxes and the car and send your child off to study? We shouldn’t have to drown ourselves in debt for these things and then get drowned in grief and depression over what that debt could do to us. These things should be our birthright—never to be taken for granted, always fought for, always to be cherished.

Often when I hear opposition to such things as a system where all are given healthcare or supplying higher education, it does not seem to truly be about financial concerns, but about disregard for anyone other than oneself. Is this the case with you? Or could I rest easy knowing it is not so? You say that now is not the time for something like healthcare reform—yet when will it be the time? I read such a thing from you and I cannot help thinking that it is but a stalling tactic, much as others have done for a decade now concerning allowing homosexuals into the army. Now is not the time, yet when there is relative peace there is still opposition. When will it be the time?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-09-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
@AngryPostman: It is hardly the same principle. That is exactly what my comment was meant to demonstrate. That is to say: there is no real misery when a hunk of metal with wheels you use to move around breaks down. If, however, your wife or boyfriend or friend becomes sickly, dangerously so, there is misery. We shouldn't profit from misery. It reminds me of funeral parlors goading patrons into buying extravagant coffins and who knows what else for their dead family, using the heightened emotions of the patrons against them.
Actually, the principle is the same. The examples are different but the action of buying a product from someone selling something is the same. The products may have different uses but you buying the services from an auto mechanic and you buying the services from an insurance company does not change the fact that you bought something from someone. Appealing to emotion does not change the the principle of the action.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-09-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph View Post
Very well said SMC, humanity is in short supply in the good old USA. The conservatives are under the delusion that we can have a great country consisting of a few rich people and the rest working for them. Its not unlike the South before the Civil War. One of these days we will wake up, I hope it will not be too late.
How is this like the Civil War times? Would you care to elaborate?
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-09-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
These people in France didn't feel burdened by taxes. People throughout Europe gladly pay for the social welfare systems they have. Denmark has enormously high taxes and, by nearly every scientific study, the most content and happy people in the developed world. Why? Because they enjoy lives absent from most of the financial stressors that make Americans unhappy (such as having to worry about paying for healthcare, or college, or whatever). The happiness of everyone around them turns into a generalized societal happiness.

No one in France I've ever spoken to thinks of things as "entitlements" the way you use the word. They think of what we call "entitlements" in the United States as willing purchases they and their society have made for the good of all. That's why they protest so vehemently against changes in the social welfare system pushed by the wealthy. It's because they realize that the "individual liberty" that so many in America think Americans possess can be a catchphrase for something quite insidious.
There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-09-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
Huzzah! The Feds should only be involved in national defense and the wellbeing of the country as it was originally intended. And I quote Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

There are only 17 things that the fed has power over, which is mainly dealing with national defense and some regulation of our currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.
I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-09-2010
randolph's Avatar
randolph randolph is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: S. Calif.
Posts: 2,502
randolph is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.
Hey, comone Tracy, the French have great vacations, free speech, great food, beautiful country, the right to protest and are as free as anyone else. The idea of the independent "pioneer" Daniel Boon type was a myth from the very beginning. This country was developed by cooperation. The pioneers helped each other, barn raising, for example. The smart ass guys that thought they could go it alone (bank robbers, train robbers, cattle rustlers) ended up hanging from the nearest tree.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-09-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...
I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-09-2010
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
The principle is still the same though.
Yes, these are essentially the same thing. Because in America, there is no more a fundamental right to transportation than there is a fundamental right to health care. If your car breaks down and you don't have the money to fix it...You're up shits creek without a paddle. If you have a life-threatening illness and don't have the money/insurance to pay for treatment...You are also out of luck.

And since health care reform is SOOOO expensive, need I remind everyone that America has the highest per capita cost of healthcare of ANY nation in the world, and for far worse outcomes. The statistics would suggest that a single-payer system would actually be far cheaper than the "for profit" model of insurance that we currently have. By removing administrative overlap of multiple insurers, not to mention the egregious CEO salaries, and the billions of dollars of dividends that are paid to shareholders...And you take BILLIONS of dollars out of health care cost. Yes, you "pay" a wage to a doctor for his services. And yes, the doctor must "profit" enough from his procedures to pay his secretary, his staff, and his overhead. But a doctor need not "profit" so much as to make millions of dollars of salary (like a corporate CEO) nor to pay dividends (as corporations do).

I find it funny to hear people say that we can't afford health care reform. Personally, I think we can't afford NOT to reform health care. The current bill was far from perfect, and lacked a lot of cost-containment measures. But according to the only record keeper that really matters (the non-partisan CBO), the current effort at health care reform actually shaves roughly $138 billion from the deficit over ten years.

It's also highly disingenous to suggest that "85% of people are happy with their insurance." It's more appropriate to say that a large percentage of people don't want to have to sacrifice their quality of care for a substandard type of care. Nevermind that many people with insurance are underinsured. MANY people who called for health care reform believe that the legislation did not go far enough...Far more than 15% that Tracy would suggest. Because the fact of the matter is, not EVERYONE in this country believes that a broken down car and life-threatening illness should be the same thing. Some of us believe that health care should be a right.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-09-2010
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.
This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-09-2010
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

I'm always very curious to engage conservatives in conversations about what they value. I mean, supposedly they value low taxes but also value fiscal accountability. The two don't really go hand-in-hand.

Republicans say they want to roll back discretionary spending...Great! That only accounts for roughly 15% of all federal spending.

Republicans say they don't want to cut defense spending, even though it has been our involvement in two wars which has contributed greatly to our deficit.

And Republicans say they want to make permanent the Bush tax cuts...Even though these same tax cuts make up 55% of our deficit.

Sounds to me like they want to have their cake and eat it too. I mean, I don't see it being fiscally responsible to make tax cuts part of your policy, when those same tax cuts are responsible for the vast majority of the deficit. Can someone explain this mystery to me?
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 11-09-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.
How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-09-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH View Post
Some of us believe that health care should be a right.
Why is healthcare a right? Shouldn't it be the right of a person to eat healthy and stay fit? Aside from the odd freak accident, alot of health problems can be averted by simple oversight of ones habits. You have the ability to exercise and you have the ability to stuff your face with twinkies until you become a bloated lard with diabeetus and numerous other health problems. If you choose one, you will have to deal with the consequences regardless of the outcome, whether it is good or bad. All these social welfare programs do is absolve those who make bad descisions of their personal responsibilities and pass the buck onto someone else.

I don't know about you but I don't like having money pulled from my paycheck to fund some lazy EBT using asshole and their horrible eating habits just so they can eat themselves into a hospital bed and/or a casket. I should not be responsible for someones well being unless I choose to do so.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 11-09-2010
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Well, aren't you the lucky one. Not everyone has such good fortune. But of course, this is America -- the one highly developed nation in the world where "social solidarity" is not just nearly non-existent, but where its opposite is taught to you from your first days in school. So, while we are all foolishly chasing the false "American dream" we've been taught about, and believing that the only righteous thing is to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,"
Firstly, yes I am fortunate. However, I remember when things were a lot rougher. Growing up, we had barely enough, if any at all, money for groceries; so more times than I care to mention, I went to bed hungry. For about three years all our cooking was either on the grill or more often the microwave because we couldn't afford to have the gas turned back on. And for heat in the winter, it was one little space heater and blankets. In all that time, not one of your glorius social programs came to our relief (and my parents tried to get assistance from them several times). No we had to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps".

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
...because they realized that everyone in France benefited from public-funded daycare...
Secondly, public(government) funded daycare --- you have got to be kidding me. [INCERT SARCASM]I think we should have a 100% tax on our paychecks. That way the government can provide everything from groceries, to gas for our cars, to paying our rent/mortgages, to premium satalite T.V. service, to utilities, to cloths and anything else we may wish.

Quote:
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
-Thomas Jefferson
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 11-09-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH View Post
This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.
Bad products are bad for business. The "exploding" gas tank on a Ford Pinto is a good example as well as Olestra potato chips. I am not against some gov. regulations; I am against overly stict regulations that stifle productivity in order to make someone feel good. Your Robin Hood-esque attitude of "Steal from the rich to give from the poor" overlooks the fact that Robin Hood was reclaiming money stolen from the people through taxes and other less than reputable means by the existing government entity at the time i.e. Prince John (The Monarchy) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (The Local Law Enforcement and Military Body).

You are correct that many libertarians are anti-government. Governments always become despotic and oppressive and will use every tool in the book to expand their power including appealing to the "working man" to get their way. Lenin and his Bullshitvik party along with the thought process of Karl Marx appealed to the "working man" to gain control, even though they were a bunch of acedemic buddy fuckers who had never done a days work in their life and look how having a government that provided everything a person needed worked out for them.

I am for limited government GRH, not living in China. Do not confuse the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sallust
Every bad precedent started out as a justifiable measure
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Last edited by The Conquistador; 11-09-2010 at 08:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 11-09-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?
Not all states have restrictive regulations. There is variety amongst states; if you don't like how one state does business, move to another one. It's the same reason why we have multiple business chains and shops rather than one monolithic WalMart. Freedom of choice. You can't really do that on a country level when few countries offer the amount of freedoms that we do and the only country that does becomes more oppressive every day.

I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that Social Security is a massize ponzi scheme and if anyone has been paying attention to the news as of late will know that they are already denying people their SS payments because there is not enough money to keep it funded. Good luck gettin yours. If I didn't have my money taken away from me by the fed, I wouldn't have to even worry about getting back what I put in. I can fare better if I had the money that is deducted from my pay and put into Social Security put into a Roth IRA instead.

http://arthurshall.com/x_social_security.shtml
http://arthurshall.com/x_2010_social_security.shtml


Quote:
BAN SOCIAL SECURITY

This article is titled "Ban Social Security" and the basic premise is of course that Social Security is the biggest rip off in the history of the world. If you think this is an overstatement, shut up and read on. The first thing we need to look at is the history of this ill-conceived program. This program was designed during the FDR (I won't refer to this communist by name) administration and that is strike one against it. The rational given to the people was it would secure a decent life for seniors but in reality it was a money grab by the administration after the precipitous decline in tax revenues as a result of the Great Depression. They told everyone "Hey give us part of your income and if you are lucky enough to live to 60 (at the time, by no means a given) we will give a measly check every month"!!! Wow, what a fucked-up, cynical system! This concept is nothing but creative wealth redistribution, which of course is every liberal's panacea. FDR was the great Robin Hood of the 20th century and he is celebrated by idiots everywhere. I hate FDR, his ideas and programs created a mushroom cloud of entitlements that threaten to cause a Chernobyl-like meltdown of our economic system.

Now, I feel like I have to give you economically challenged yokels out there a explanation of how this shit works. They take 6.2% of your income and they force your employer (McDonald's or Walmart in your case) to match that contribution. So if you look at it, those fuckers take 12.4% of your income every God damn week. Now I am going to do a calculation for you, I am sure you will not understand it but read it anyway! Now if you make $50,000 per year that means that $6200 of your hard earned dollars go into this program per year. Let's assume we were given $5000 of it and your employer kept $1200 of it to invest in the business to improve operations, hire more workers, or redistribute to shareholders (Hey, liberals… business owners create jobs! Imagine that!! Another bit of Viking wisdom for you). Next lets do some simple math, if you are 25 years old and you invested it at a 5% return (which is far below the median market return over the last 100 years) you would have a yearly income of $160,000 per year after age 65!! Now of course, we have to adjust that for inflation with the assumed rate of 3% you would have roughly $55,000 year. So in other words, by not doing anything but taking back the money that the government stole from you and doing it yourself, you could guarantee a comparable standard of living to what you enjoy now. FUCKING AMAZING!! Now if you were to actually do something extra, 401(k) for instance, your standard of living could actually improve after age 65, something that the modern SSN system is utterly incapable of doing.

I am not writing this to say that the current proposal from the Bush administration is much better than the current system. It is better but it is a stop-gap and does not fix the main issue. The main issue is that our population is aging and soon the money just flat won't be there to cover the payments. One fix for this is for you weak-minded, limp-wristed, testosterone-lacking metrosexuals to actually man up and have kids. We know this won't happen because the same groups (Dumbocrats, they are always fucking things up!) that oppose scrapping SSN are the same groups that advocate abortions for anyone and everyone. That, in combination, with your miniscule sperm count from the infusion of estrogen that you seem to thrive on is the death blow for the correct demographics for this Robin Hood system to continue to function. The only other solution to this issue is to kill the entire program. I can hear the cries from the peanut gallery already "What if the people don't invest the money and they don't have anything when they are old?" or "Who takes care of the poor people that did not do the right thing?” Well, I have a simple retort to that. FUCK EM!! If you are too stupid to take care of yourself and you think that the government should take care of you, guess what we have for you? A one way ticket to North Korea and you can see, first hand, what a government controlled system looks like. If you allow your friends and family to take that extra money and buy more Doritos with it then you deserve to pay when they need insulin to treat their self-induced diabetes. I have a fear that if we give these idiots more money they will buy more DVD's, frozen food and just generally waste all the money. Actually, that is not a fear, I own stock in all companies that take advantage of stupid people and when they are broke, fat and alone I won't be paying thousands of dollars a year to subsidize their self-destructive habits and my dividend checks will grow!! Wow that is great. The moral of the story is that we do not need Social Security and the sooner these bastards in Washington figure it out, the better of we all will be!!! Oh yeah, burn in hell FDR!!!
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Last edited by The Conquistador; 11-09-2010 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 11-09-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Tracy: healthcare is about whatever serious health problems you may develop, not about something as easily dealt with as a sinus infection. You make light of health problems. Why? So as to avoid the matter of profiting from misery?
I didn't say they were all minor, just a lot of health issues are. For the health issues that are minor like a sinus infection and less of a pain to deal with than repairing your car, is it ok in your mind for insurance companies to profit from getting your doctor paid?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-09-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
This is something people need. And if sacrifices must be made to give the people something as vital as that, then why not? This is not insidious. It is a matter of compassion for the fellow man.
What if the fellow man smokes and eats donuts for breakfast, a #6 supersized at McDonalds, snacks on candy in the afternoon, has fried chicken for dinner and rounds it off with ice cream every evening? Do my taxes pay for his triple heart bypass surgery?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Tracy, you were born, fed and bred in a country that has no sense of community. No sense of solidarity. It is every man for himself. The cowboy is a national symbol! But no one can live by oneself.
Who are you to say that no one can live by their self? It's not your cup of tea, but it might be someone else's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
I do not know your background Tracy. But I cannot help thinking that you were well taken care of when you were younger. That your parents had the means for ___ (whatever means those were for whatever you needed).
My family was lower middle class. My parents didn't go to college. I worked through college and paid half my expenses for my bachelors and paid all my expenses for my masters. When I graduated I had no loans. The fact that I worked to pay for college was looked at by my employer as positive and showed that I had initiative. It also was looked at as valuable experience for the job. I now have 2 masters degrees and am in the upper middle class and support a family of 5 with my salary. I didn't have quite as far as those in poverty to pull my self up by my bootstraps but I did, and in doing so it made me more capable and I had to improve myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Often when I hear opposition to such things as a system where all are given healthcare or supplying higher education, it does not seem to truly be about financial concerns, but about disregard for anyone other than oneself. Is this the case with you? Or could I rest easy knowing it is not so?
If you think we do not care for anyone other than ourselves, look here. And that's just government contributions. American individuals donated $226 billion in charities last year. It would take 3 Frenchmen, or 7 Germans, or 14 Italians to equal the charitable donations of 1 American.

But the fact is we are facing collapse of the US dollar. When the US government spends $trillions on stimulus packages, that's not our money. That's other countries money like China, and we do it without considering their reaction. Isn't that a bit arrogant? Then on top of that we add the national health care program. There's another $trillion... surely the Chinese won't mind another trillion. How long can this last?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body

Last edited by TracyCoxx; 11-09-2010 at 11:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-10-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Speaking of bashing America, here's a pretty good article from one Canadian reporter in 1973 that had enough of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Sinclair
America: The Good Neighbor.

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times, and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

Stand proud, America!
Wear it proudly!!
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-10-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from.
Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-10-2010
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
Actually, the principle is the same. The examples are different but the action of buying a product from someone selling something is the same. The products may have different uses but you buying the services from an auto mechanic and you buying the services from an insurance company does not change the fact that you bought something from someone. Appealing to emotion does not change the the principle of the action.
How can you possibly equate buying new shock absorbers to buying life-saving procedures? You may be buying in both cases, but to reduce it to merely the act of buying as opposed to taking its context into account is cold. It ignores the human.

No one can live alone. It is not possible. To live alone is to invite insanity. You don't hunt your own food. You're not a hermit and neither should you desire to be one. When you go to the supermarket you're depending on someone. When you go to the movie theater alone you're still depending on someone. Fractured as society in the US may be, have you noticed how you still clump together into areas? You may not speak to one another but you still live close to others. It's a little part of the gregarious animal in you expressing its natural/biological/evolutionary urge to live in groups, suffused in meaningful social interaction and validation--a little part of the gregarious animal expressing itself even when mired in bullshit like suburbs and the nuclear unit and the rending of ties after something like highschool.

Why shouldn't I appeal to emotion? I am not here blathering a la Glenn Beck. To remove compassion from any area of the human experience--and EVERYTHING is a part of the human experience--is a recipe for disaster.

Last edited by Enoch Root; 11-10-2010 at 09:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-10-2010
Tread's Avatar
Tread Tread is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 270
Tread is a glorious beacon of lightTread is a glorious beacon of lightTread is a glorious beacon of lightTread is a glorious beacon of lightTread is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
If you think we do not care for anyone other than ourselves, look here. And that's just government contributions.
For someone who sets value on a reliable source, this link is not the best example, a Wikipedia article based on two sources, OECD and globalhumanitarianassistance.org which have an invalid link and are non existing page.

According to OECD the USA gave total the most because they have the most citizens. You take place 19 by percentage of GNI. Place 19 from 23 member counties isn?t that good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
American individuals donated $226 billion in charities last year. It would take 3 Frenchmen, or 7 Germans, or 14 Italians to equal the charitable donations of 1 American.
On what is that based on? You could try to adorn yourself with borrowed plumes. If a few Bill Gates/Hollywood Stars donate huge amounts you can reach good statistics per citizen, but it says nothing about your social charity per citizen.
You try to show how charitable and social the USA and it citizens are and base it on maybe a few amply individual donations. Then you say how many foreigner it would take to equal 1 American donation. Isn't that a bit arrogant?
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-10-2010
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
What if the fellow man smokes and eats donuts for breakfast, a #6 supersized at McDonalds, snacks on candy in the afternoon, has fried chicken for dinner and rounds it off with ice cream every evening? Do my taxes pay for his triple heart bypass surgery?
Strawman, much?
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-10-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.
I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur". If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

The people who originally put into Social Security are withdrawing more than they put in. This is something that will not be able to continue for long.

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Last edited by The Conquistador; 11-10-2010 at 02:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-10-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Why shouldn't I appeal to emotion? I am not here blathering a la Glenn Beck. To remove compassion from any area of the human experience--and EVERYTHING is a part of the human experience--is a recipe for disaster.
The same reason why our country is founded upon the basis of a constitutional republic and not a democracy, or why we have our legal system set up so that you are judged by a panel of your peers rather than being judged by the family or friends of whoever may have been wronged.

Emotion clouds judgement and when you react to situation based on emotion, you tend to overlook certain important elements that would have been noticed and properly addressed with cold, rational thought. People are alot more easily manipulated when in an emotional state rather than when they are able to think clearly. If you were able to avenge every percieved wrong brought against you versus any actual wrong, you would not know truth from lie.

Distancing yourself from a problem, being able to get all the facts first and making an informed decision as opposed flying off the bat at every problem that evoked an emotional response is actually adding the "human element", as you put it, to a problem. Animals make decisions based on their emotions and can go from Ahab to Arab in the blink of an eye. They do not have the governer in place that allows them the faculties for rational thought. "Homo Sapien", it means "Smart Man." We are smart creatures. Our ability for rational thought and looking at a problem objectively is what makes us greater than animals, so if anything, adding emotion to our decisions is adding an "animalistic element" which has proven itself time and time again to be a recipie for disaster and does not allow for advancement as a people.

That is why problems that have such huge gravity (like laws and programs or decisions of life and death over people) that affect a multitude of people must not be taken lightly and must be scrutinized to the smallest detail, rather than based off of an emotional response.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Last edited by The Conquistador; 11-10-2010 at 01:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-10-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur".
You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.
All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?
Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 11-10-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?
Yes. But is is a more solidly and probablility based "what if". What if an asteroid San Diego? What if zombies invaded? What if this happened? What if that happened? You can think of all the what if's all you want and deal with those. I just deal with the most likely ones to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.
Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.



Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.
I answered that:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman
I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.
I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

And yes, obviously you do support these programs to some degree, otherwise you would not have been pestering me about what I would do and trying to turn it into what I think about this or that. I have made myself pretty clear in my past posts in other threads about my stance on such things. If you are curious, I advise you to reread my previous posts.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Last edited by The Conquistador; 11-10-2010 at 03:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-10-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.
I meant to leave out all but the last part, which did answer my question. The rest is what I meant by irrelevant. I introduced the confusion with my error in quoting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.
This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-10-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.
I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now as it would have sufficed. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-10-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.
You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-10-2010
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
The same reason why our country is founded upon the basis of a constitutional republic and not a democracy, or why we have our legal system set up so that you are judged by a panel of your peers rather than being judged by the family or friends of whoever may have been wronged.

Emotion clouds judgement and when you react to situation based on emotion, you tend to overlook certain important elements that would have been noticed and properly addressed with cold, rational thought. People are alot more easily manipulated when in an emotional state rather than when they are able to think clearly. If you were able to avenge every percieved wrong brought against you versus any actual wrong, you would not know truth from lie.

Distancing yourself from a problem, being able to get all the facts first and making an informed decision as opposed flying off the bat at every problem that evoked an emotional response is actually adding the "human element", as you put it, to a problem. Animals make decisions based on their emotions and can go from Ahab to Arab in the blink of an eye. They do not have the governer in place that allows them the faculties for rational thought. "Homo Sapien", it means "Smart Man." We are smart creatures. Our ability for rational thought and looking at a problem objectively is what makes us greater than animals, so if anything, adding emotion to our decisions is adding an "animalistic element" which has proven itself time and time again to be a recipie for disaster and does not allow for advancement as a people.

That is why problems that have such huge gravity (like laws and programs or decisions of life and death over people) that affect a multitude of people must not be taken lightly and must be scrutinized to the smallest detail, rather than based off of an emotional response.
We are a society of people, not robots. And I am speaking of positive emotions, not something like murder or other instances of injury.

You draw a false line between the human and the animal. It is one and the same. Love and compassion are just as necessary and good, if not greater, than "objective thought." Love is not the greater of sex. "I believe a leaf is no less than the journey-work of the stars." Do you understand? What is the point of banding together as a species and creating policy, if not to make our lives better? To desire my family or friends or neighbors to be hale and hearty is utterly reasonable and utterly human. That everyone is manipulated by the insurance companies and that this is an injustice is no imagined wrong.

I have never understood the continued disregard and devaluing of the emotions amongst you Americans. You bristle at that which is good, you bristle at the senses and at passion. It is Puritanical and outdated and should have died with the Mayflower. This is all the more ironic given the nature of this forum. The only emotion, the only passion you are good at and respond to, is that which is associated with fear. Glenn Beck sounding the trumpet of the ride of the Horsemen.

The Trinity of reasoned discourse: logos, ethos, pathos. I will not apologize for appealing to the emotions. It is an honored element of discussion. Any argument that does not attempt to address all three (reasoning, credibility of the speaker, and emotion) is an incomplete argument.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-10-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.
If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?

And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.

And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-10-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?
You hide behind the sophistic method of constantly trying to shift the foundation upon which discourse takes place. There are plenty of people in the world who argue for the dissolution of something and still benefit from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.
I presumed your reasoning was what you quoted from the Constitution and the 17 things you say the federal government has responsibility for, all related to defense and regulation of the currency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.
I am purely interested in your opinion about Social Security and whether one who is on principle opposed to it should ever draw from it. This is abundantly clear from my questions. The only clarification that has been requested is of your method of arguing, which is to ascribe to me things I did not write.

Again, I defy you to prove your point, with quotes, that I expressed "defensiveness and preference" regarding welfare programs. I wrote about the notion of "social solidarity" and used such programs as an example. I've quote you again and again in this discourse, but thus far you have failed to provide a single quote to back up your characterizations of HOW I have engaged in the discourse.

I don't know how else to explain this, so I apologize in advance for the analogy I am about to use. It is used only because I am at a loss for any other way to make my point.

I teach at a university. All of my students are PhD students. We have seminars in which there is very heated discourse.

Let's imagine that the interaction you and I have been having on this site took place at my university in a classroom. Further assume, as is the case, that there is an accepted rule that professors and students are equals in seminars -- that is, there is no formal hierarchy, and any informal hierarchy is seriously frowned upon. I have absolutely not doubt that if the full record of our interactions were put before an independent body of students and professors serving as a commission of inquiry, that you would be found to have violated the standards for legitimate discourse. I am so certain of this that I would bet my career on it.

Now, before you dismiss this with some vitriol about liberal academia, I should point out that I am referring to my principal appointment at the university, which happens to be in the Management school -- hardly a bastion of liberalism, no matter what else the rest of my institution, or any other one for that matter, might be.

Last edited by smc; 11-10-2010 at 06:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-10-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
We are a society of people, not robots. And I am speaking of positive emotions, not something like murder or other instances of injury.

You draw a false line between the human and the animal. It is one and the same. Love and compassion are just as necessary and good, if not greater, than "objective thought." Love is not the greater of sex. "I believe a leaf is no less than the journey-work of the stars." Do you understand? What is the point of banding together as a species and creating policy, if not to make our lives better? To desire my family or friends or neighbors to be hale and hearty is utterly reasonable and utterly human. That everyone is manipulated by the insurance companies and that this is an injustice is no imagined wrong.

I have never understood the continued disregard and devaluing of the emotions amongst you Americans. You bristle at that which is good, you bristle at the senses and at passion. It is Puritanical and outdated and should have died with the Mayflower. This is all the more ironic given the nature of this forum. The only emotion, the only passion you are good at and respond to, is that which is associated with fear. Glenn Beck sounding the trumpet of the ride of the Horsemen.

The Trinity of reasoned discourse: logos, ethos, pathos. I will not apologize for appealing to the emotions. It is an honored element of discussion. Any argument that does not attempt to address all three (reasoning, credibility of the speaker, and emotion) is an incomplete argument.
Rational thought is what has helped us to overcome many challenges instead of rushing headstrong into the problem. I am very well aware of my emotions and my need for human interaction but I do not de-value my emotions, I simply keep them in check. Your inability think above "People need healthcare because it is a right" does not look at the many facets of what the impact of such a program would have. You are thinking of the immediate, which while not a bad thing, does not take into account things like the current debt crisis that we have, long term viability, abuses of the system, overall cost on the people, bureaucratic red tape and numerous other problems that federally instituted programs are notorious for.

Saying that people need such a program is inherently arrogant and condescending. You are in effect saying that you know what people need more than the people themselves. If you truly claim to care about others, then why do you wish to take away their ability to choose what is best for them? What works for you may not work for them and blanket policies like that just do not work. People do not have to use insurance companies because there are other places to get medical care at other than the hospital.

There are places like US HealthWorks and other businessess that will do quality jobs for cheap and they tell you how much it will cost up front. I've had quality dental work and minor surgeries for about a 10th of the cost of what it would have cost with an insurance company.. I am perfectly happy with what I have and I don't need the federal gov. to take from me to fund crappier quality healthcare.

If people wish to be charitable, let them. Do not force them to be charitable by using the federal government to take money from them. Instituting programs like that only keep people from realizing the consequences of their haphazard ways. Getting rid of social safety nets will force people to be responsible and will help them realize the long term effects of their actions and help them plan accordingly.

And no, fear is not the only emotion I respond to. Like I said, I keep my emotions in check and I try to look at a problem objectively. That doesn't mean I am a cold hearted bastard; I do feel and I am aware of the impact my actions can have and act accordingly. I do love people as well, I am just not the type who wishes to impoverish the many for the benefit of the few. I feel that if you stop holding people by the hand and let them make decisions by themselves, people will for the most part make choices that have positive effects.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-11-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

smc and I now have settled our diffferences, misunderstandings and will now go paint the town red. It's either that or get drunk and light some shit on fire.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-11-2010
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Umm, what's that campfire song? Hosanna? I guess? Am I getting this right?

What does that mean, painting the town red?

Last edited by Enoch Root; 11-11-2010 at 10:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 11-11-2010
randolph's Avatar
randolph randolph is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: S. Calif.
Posts: 2,502
randolph is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
mmmmm I like that.
Would you like to share cock and bull stories?
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 11-11-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph View Post
Would you like to share cock and bull stories?
How about cock and ass stories?
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 11-11-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...
If I understand what you're saying, it's hard for me to answer that question since I do support taxing for more than just the military and regulation of currency. Of those things I propose to do away with funding for interstate highways. Funding highways forces states to abide by the national speed limit and other regulations that are a one size fits all solution. There are varying environments across the country and states should set their own regulations (although there should still of course be some consistency like signs and symbols, drive on the right, etc) and states are capable of paying for their own highways.

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

Biomedical research should be funded. There should be public school aid because there should be national standards in education. Air traffic control system? Of course. National parks should definitely be preserved and protected against republicans. Maintaining the Library of Congress? Sure, why not. Medicare? I'm not up on medicare, but probably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.
Social Security definitely needs to be overhauled. I liked the plan that Bush proposed where SS is phased out based on age. I've heard something about a new plan (by the democrats?) to lower SS benefits on the rich. Fine, as long as they don't have to pay for benefits they don't receive. And welfare... there's a whole buttload of problems there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?
Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?
I was forced in to paying into SS rather than putting that money into investments. Since I will still need that money for retirement and the government has forced that money to be in the form of SS, I have no other choice but to use it.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 11-11-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Strawman, much?
I have raised a valid point. A large part of our health problems are caused by what we eat and how we care for ourselves. This is entirely within our control. 25% of what you eat keeps you alive. The rest of what you eat keeps your doctor alive.

Dodge questions much? Please answer the question. Should my taxes go to pay for someones triple heart bypass surgery when they have trashed their own arteries?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 11-11-2010
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Ok, it's getting deep in here. How bout a round for everyone
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 11-11-2010
randolph's Avatar
randolph randolph is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: S. Calif.
Posts: 2,502
randolph is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Ok, it's getting deep in here. How bout a round for everyone
Hey great! Are us California wackos included? How about bringing in some hot shemales for a little R and R. I could fly to Texas for that.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 11-11-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Umm, what's that campfire song? Hosanna? I guess? Am I getting this right?
I suspect you mean "Kumbayah."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
What does that mean, painting the town red?
It means to engage in some sort of spree, originally riotous and bloody (hence the "red") but over time to mean go out at night, around town, and hit all the top spots, drinking, cavorting, carousing, and so on.

One origin of the phrase is said to come from the 1830s when a group of friends ran around a town somewhere in Leicestershire, England (I can't remember exactly), late a night, and painted a whole bunch of buildings red.

Another is the "Spring Heeled Jack" legend of England, which is linked to Henry de la Poer Beresford, a notorious hooligan who, while at Oxford University, used to cause a lot of mayhem. It included literally upsetting apple-carts, breaking windows, and painting the heels of a parson's horse with aniseed (which would come out red).

Last edited by smc; 11-11-2010 at 03:04 PM. Reason: Fixed typo.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 11-11-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Tracy, I really, really appreciate your thoughtful answer to my questions. Despite what some may think, I am genuinely interested in a rational discourse about these issues. I want to make clear that I am not a liberal; my own political/economic positions put me way outside of the sphere in which liberals are typically situated. I confess to a lack of understanding of where conservatives and libertarians are coming from, outside of what often seems to be a reaction against change, because it seems as if many positions from the conservative and libertarian perspective run contrary to the economic interests of those who profess them, and in fact serve the interests of others in a class the conservative and libertarian can never hope to attain. That is why I really do appreciate real answers to real questions.

That said, I would like to explore your answers a bit more, and pose some additional questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.
I'm glad you see financial aid as a good thing, especially in a country that does not offer free or nearly free tuition and access to higher education (as is the case in many European countries). One solution might be to establish such a system. Independent of that, though, I would be interested in where you have come up with this analysis that links financial aid to tuition increases. You are describing institutions of higher education as if they are profit-maximizing entities.

I have never heard of a causal relationship of the sort you describe. Typically, schools increase tuition because of cutbacks (in the case of public universities) or cost increases (in the case of private institutions), and they typically do not cut back financial aid -- much of which comes via the federal government -- when they increase tuition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Biomedical research should be funded.
What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.
The quote directly above is your response to these questions I posed: "How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a 'united states' at all?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal policies" -- perhaps you mean with respect to social issues. But putting that aside, let's look at regulation. Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this. Arkansas chicken producers do not provide any label indicating what the chickens are fed, while Georgia producers are required to by state regulation. Even for those who argue "states' rights" here, there is obviously a problem so long as we have cross-state markets. So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 11-11-2010
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Someone questioned my post about the origins of "paint the town red," so I thought I'd offer another answer. This comes from one of my favorite books: Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, by William and Mary Morris, published in 1962:

"This colorful term for a wild spree, especially one involving much drinking, probably originated in the frontier. In the nineteenth century the section of town where brothels and saloons were located was known as the 'red light district.' So a group of lusty cowhands out for a 'night on the town' might very well take it into their heads to make the whole town red."

Personally, I think Mr. and Mrs. Morris are wrong, since the earliest known appearance of the term "red light district" dates from 1894.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 11-11-2010
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.
I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.

Quote:
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience”
Albert Camus
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Last edited by The Conquistador; 11-11-2010 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Giselly (Giselle) Lins -- another angel meets a violent end. seanchai In Memoriam 10 08-19-2012 05:51 PM
The Second Coming of Keliana ila Freebies 9 12-24-2011 11:39 AM
Absolutely gorgeous hottie asian with cumshot at end schiff ID help needed 2 06-07-2010 12:20 PM
Coming out guest Chat About Shemales 3 03-15-2009 03:22 PM
Coming out Kendra Chat About Shemales 1 03-02-2009 05:10 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy