Coakley Is Out--brown Wins

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You left out a bit there:

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?

ANGRY:

Conse 'Pubs say friends, family and neighbors should help people who fall through the cracks.

You are saying anyone who has a problem it's 100% their fault--end of story?

Would you be that friend, famly member or neighbor who would reach in your pocket to help that person? Prove me wrong by saying there are no exceptions.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Conse 'Pubs say friends, family and neighbors should help people who fall through the cracks.

You are saying anyone who has a problem it's 100% their fault--end of story?

Would you be that friend, famly member or neighbor who would reach in your pocket to help that person? Prove me wrong by saying there are no exceptions.


TAL

Anyone who does not have enough foresight to forsee possible obstacle and plan accordingly deserves what they get. If family, friends and neighbors want to help out, then so be it. I have no problem with individual charity.

I never said anyone who has a problem is to blame. I said that anyone who does not anticipate possible and probable problems in their future is an idiot and gets what they deserve. Alot of things can be fixed early on (note I said alot, not all). Things like health problems could be prevented by routine exercise, discipline and good nutrition. What I cannot stand is people who lead reckless lives with no thought to their future, and when shit starts going downhill, they try to obligate others into making things comfortable for them. I have no pity for losers like that.

And if I knew that a friend, family member or neighbor who was in trouble, yes I would help them if it was a reasonable cause. If they had incurred the problem themselves, I would tell them to kick rocks.

I have some questions for you.

Is your personal health your responsibility or the Government's?

Is managing your hard earned money your responsibility or the Government's?

Is proper planning on your behalf your responsibility or the Government's?

[The Conquistador]

Tal. What I have a problem with is when people are not responsible for their actions and use the system as a way for other people to pull their weight.

If you want to help someone out, that is all good. But using the gov. as a way to force people to be "charitable" is cowardly. You have no "social responsibility" towards the welfare of unproductive people. They have to realize that they need to be more proactive in their lives. Feeling guilty because someone is facing the consequences of their actions is the routine of con artists and parasites. If they are in legitimate need of help, by all means help them. If not, then they must learn the errors of their ways.

Remember the saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime."

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Tal. What I have a problem with is when people are not responsible for their actions and use the system as a way for other people to pull their weight.

If you want to help someone out, that is all good. But using the gov. as a way to force people to be "charitable" is cowardly. You have no "social responsibility" towards the welfare of unproductive people. They have to realize that they need to be more proactive in their lives. Feeling guilty because someone is facing the consequences of their actions is the routine of con artists and parasites. If they are in legitimate need of help, by all means help them. If not, then they must learn the errors of their ways.

Remember the saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime."

ANGRY:

Save the Conse 'Pub one-size-fit-all sayings.

Each circumstance is individual, and I've found that Conse 'Pubs label a wide range of situations as a con.

When Conse 'Pubs are done with their exclusions, are not enough people left to have a program in a town, let alone a country, no?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Save the Conse 'Pub one-size-fit-all sayings.

Each circumstance is individual, and I've found that Conse 'Pubs label a wide range of situations as a con.

When Conse 'Pubs are done with their exclusions, are not enough people left to have a program in a town, let alone a country, no?

TAL

That is the idea. If you tolerate that type of leeching, people will just continue to abuse the system. If you stop giving them handouts, they tend to be more productive, and less dependent on others.

Programs like Welfare, Medicare and other things are a way for people to justify their irresponsibility and only serves to burden everyone else with a huge cost.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

That is the idea. If you tolerate that type of leeching, people will just continue to abuse the system. If you stop giving them handouts, they tend to be more productive, and less dependent on others.

Programs like Welfare, Medicare and other things are a way for people to justify their irresponsibility and only serves to burden everyone else with a huge cost.

ANGRY:

It's also my point about exclusions being more important than people, because you can eliminate all but a handful of PERFECT people. Jesus drank wine to excess, he'd be excluded by most Conse 'Pubs.

You're right the idea is to exclude most people, and the balance would not get covered: no program, no coverage!! ZERO covered!! Tough luck, too bad!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

It's also my point about exclusions being more important than people, because you can eliminate all but a handful of PERFECT people. Jesus drank wine to excess, he'd be excluded by most Conse 'Pubs.

You're right the idea is to exclude most people, and the balance would not get covered: no program, no coverage!! ZERO covered!! Tough luck, too bad!!

TAL

Most of the people on welfare are leeches. The money that you shelled out for Social Security and Medicare has already been spent once it was taken out of your check. All these government programs are are just clever wealth redistribution. Government spending is what gets us into this kind of crap and they just continue to tax us to cover the costs of their out of control spending.

Is that really beneficial for anyone?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I have some questions for you.

Is your personal health your responsibility or the Government's?

Is managing your hard earned money your responsibility or the Government's?

Is proper planning on your behalf your responsibility or the Government's?

ANGRY:

I don't feel the govrmt. is responsible, and that is a Hannity type of trick that says you're right. Answer the question yes or no. I say yes and you're right, and I say no and I'm a socialist.

I say there are exceptions with the difference being that you'll look for any excuse to say no. You don't exercise and you're disqualified from all illnesses, no?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

I don't feel the govrmt. is responsible, and that is a Hannity type of trick that says you're right. Answer the question yes or no. I say yes and you're right, and I say no and I'm a socialist.

I say there are exceptions with the difference being that you'll look for any excuse to say no. You don't exercise and you're disqualified from all illnesses, no?

TAL

You admit that the government has no say in things regarding personal responsibility. That is what I was looking for.

I do not think that you are a socialist but I like how you were trying to forsee a probable outcome.

Things like exercise and saving your money will pay big dividends in the future. Say someone makes x amount of dollars a year. Now let's say that y amount of dollars is used for essentials like food, rent and bills and is half of what they make. What about the other half of what they earn? Could that other money have been used towards things like savings or healthcare? What happend to the money? Now add this up over a few years and you got a good sum of money. Could that money not be used towards necessities?

Odds are that your average person will have burned through that money and squandered it on a flashy car or a new sound system so that they can impress their friends. That is irresponsibile and stupid. If people have that much lack of restraint, they need to accept the concequences when they come back to bite you in the ass.