Coakley Is Out--brown Wins

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by CCC

FAIL ?? He is failing now. EVERYBODY'S FAILING
INVENT MONEY ?? If that is the same as printing money--that he's doing.
REAGANOMICS!!!
FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT ??? he has set back real blacks terribly by his on going failures.

THE ONLY PEOPLE GOING BACKWARD ARE THE HICK RACISTS

[CCC]

Why is it everytime I get some good facts typed in this damn computer is crashes---I think I have the OBAMA VIRUS


OKAY which one of you libs sent it??

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

THE ONLY PEOPLE GOING BACKWARD ARE THE HICK RACISTS

JIM:

Don't you know that according to Conservative Glenn Beck that Obama is a racist with a deep-seated hatred of white people, and that Conse 'Pubs proved that Sotomayor is a racist?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Saying that race has anything to do with someone's achievements or failings is inherently racist.

Most don't hate Obama because he's black; they hate him because he's fuckin up big time. This isn't rocket surgery...

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Saying that race has anything to do with someone's achievements or failings is inherently racist.

Most don't hate Obama because he's black; they hate him because he's fuckin up big time. This isn't rocket surgery...

ANGRY:

Most hate him because he's not a Conse 'Pub, and that goes back to 2 mos. before the election.

TAL

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Saying that race has anything to do with someone's achievements or failings is inherently racist.

Most don't hate Obama because he's black; they hate him because he's fuckin up big time. This isn't rocket surgery...

I've got news for you, buddy, we live in a racist country. The Obama I saw in Baltimore today seemed to be handling himself pretty well, for a racist, communist, {CENSORED} radical.

[The Conquistador]

No. If he had shown some restraint with the nations funds instead of spending money like a stereotypical suburbanite popping Prozacs like they were Bon-Bons, most people would not be so hostile towards him. Some would still be wary of him but most would have a so-so attitude. Not good, but not bad. Think like Clinton. Sure he was a Democrat and enacted some stupid policies but he was fiscally responsible and didn't jack up the economy. Overall, he was an OK president. Obama could have been that way but completely dropped the ball on this.

If we start seeing hyperinflation, he will have gone from Jimmy Carter status(at best) to antichrist status(at worst).

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

I've got news for you, buddy, we live in a racist country. The Obama I saw in Baltimore today seemed to be handling himself pretty well, for a racist, communist, {CENSORED} radical.

You think America is racist? Xenophobic is more like it but racist? People throw that word around so much, it's lost it's meaning. Just like when people disagree with libtards, the common response is to call someone racist. Believe me, I've been called that many times for being openly opposed to the stimulus bill that was passed. Logic dictates that if you are in debt, you do not keep spending money; you cut back and save. Is that racist?

I saw a documentary about German citizens getting their asses whooped by Arab and African immigrants in Germany simply because they were not Arab or African. That my friend IS racist.

[jimnaseum]

Rock and Rahmbo are going to rebuild this country from the ashes up, and there's a whole lotta things gonna happen people won't like. Or know about. So y'all make sure your teaparty dues are paid up. You'll have lots to whine about in the future.

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You think America is racist? I've been called that many times

Sounds like a personal problem to me. I think you called me racist a couple posts ago.

If you want to know your enemy read some Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. Don't get angry, get even.

[The Conquistador]

Don't worry about me. I am self-sufficient and can handle my own.

And no. I did not call you racist a couple posts ago. I said that the idea that race has anything to do with accomplishment or failure is in and of itself racist. Whether or not you took it as a personal attack is all dependent on you.

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Logic dictates that if you are in debt, you do not keep spending money; you cut back and save.

There's nothing to cut back! There's not enough money to pay the rent! Everything is gone! Where was this advice eight years ago?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Sounds like a personal problem to me. I think you called me racist a couple posts ago.

If you want to know your enemy read some Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. Don't get angry, get even.

I've been called that simply because I did not agree with someone's train of thought. Like I said, it is a last resort in a debate when liberal types cannot find fault with a well reasoned arguement.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

There's nothing to cut back! There's not enough money to pay the rent! Everything is gone! Where was this advice eight years ago?

So does that give Obama free reign to keep spending money? A very nihilistic "Why not? Everyone else is doing it!" attitude coupled with emotion rather than rational thought is not a recipie for success.

Obama could have actually staunched our monetary problem but in fact made it worse.

[jimnaseum]

Your average American makes just under 30k/yr. When someone steals a candybar at 7-11, HE pays for it. When someone makes a million on Wall St, HE pays for it. When someone invades Iraq, HE pays for it. The Stimulus was not Obama's idea. When every cent that comes into the treasury is used to pay debt, that really doesn't leave many options, does it? There is more money going out than coming in, how do you cut down spending, when you have no money to spend?
The Stimulus package goes straight to that guy that makes 30K/yr. Infastructure jobs. At least that's the idea. Give the money to the middle class first, they are the ones who worked for it. Then the poor can steal from them, and the rich can steal from them, as usual.
America came to Obama when it was on it's knees and handed him a Dead Economy. Now America is whining because he hasn't fixed everything in one year. America needs to be taught a lesson.

[Talvenada]

Now America is whining because he hasn't fixed everything in one year. America needs to be taught a lesson.



JIM:

The best part is that Conse 'Pubs are listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, Levin and their pols. They all have money and would have more with tax cuts across the board. I've heard them saying the bankers, ins. cos. and oil cos. are under threat by Obama. Basically what they're saying is that corps. need more control over our lives.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Now America is whining because he hasn't fixed everything in one year. America needs to be taught a lesson.



JIM:

The best part is that Conse 'Pubs are listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, Levin and their pols. They all have money and would have more with tax cuts across the board. I've heard them saying the bankers, ins. cos. and oil cos. are under threat by Obama. Basically what they're saying is that corps. need more control over our lives.

TAL

How are corporations in control of your lives? Explain that to me. I'd rather deal with businessess than Governments for the reason that if you don't like the way a business is doing things, you take your money and your dealings to a competitor. The more business they lose, the more apt they are to please the customer and boost sales.

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

How are corporations in control of your lives? Explain that to me. I'd rather deal with businessess than Governments for the reason that if you don't like the way a business is doing things, you take your money and your dealings to a competitor. The more business they lose, the more apt they are to please the customer and boost sales.

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

ANGRY:

So, you would prefer the ins. & health care provrs. buying more pols to make sure there is no health care, because no matter what Conse 'Pubs say about health care, it's what they've been saying since RR. Conse 'Pubs only went that far, because the issue hung around. What they really want is to trash health care completely, and have bragged about it. Elect Conse 'Pubs and they'll reverse any health care they couldn't stop.

Ins. & HC cos. are spending over $1M per DAY each to get the best deal for them, and have threatened to up prices dramatically. Their plans are to maintain their profit by all offering the same deal to the public, which means you're screwed the same way if you go to a competitor.

Yeah, we became commies under FDR, because pure capitalism was so successful in 1929 under Hoover. RR said Medicare would take the freedom of his children if it was passed, and now 30 years later we'll become like N. Korea?

There are good forms of socialism, like social security, Medicare, unemployment comp., and bad forms. 100% capitalism has problems, and needs restrictions to protect innocent people from greedy types. 100% socialism has problems too, like with dictators.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

So, you would prefer the ins. & health care provrs. buying more pols to make sure there is no health care, because no matter what Conse 'Pubs say about health care, it's what they've been saying since RR. Conse 'Pubs only went that far, because the issue hung around. What they really want is to trash health care completely, and have bragged about it. Elect Conse 'Pubs and they'll reverse any health care they couldn't stop.

Ins. & HC cos. are spending over $1M per DAY each to get the best deal for them, and have threatened to up prices dramatically. Their plans are to maintain their profit by all offering the same deal to the public, which means you're screwed the same way if you go to a competitor.

Yeah, we became commies under FDR, because pure capitalism was so successful in 1929 under Hoover. RR said Medicare would take the freedom of his children if it was passed, and now 30 years later we'll become like N. Korea?

There are good forms of socialism, like social security, Medicare, unemployment comp., and bad forms. 100% capitalism has problems, and needs restrictions to protect innocent people from greedy types. 100% socialism has problems too, like with dictators.


TAL

Healthcare is so expensive because of gov. intervention, frivolous lawsuits and losers abusing the ER because they have sand in their vagina. Healthcare is not a universal right, it is an individual responsibility.

Hoover was the one who started they whole expanding gov. thing; FDR was an asshole who took what Hoover did and took it way further. Hoovers institution of Keynesian economics really put us in the shitter. That was not capitalism; that was stupid executive intervention.

There is some room within the free market economy for the government. That role is that of a referee, to make sure that everyone plays by the same set of rules. Anti-trust rules need to be enforced. If monopoly or price fixing is allowed competition ceases and the market stagnates. However, government CANNOT participate in the free market, its very existence in the market kills the private companies that try to compete. This is because government can have unlimited resources, drop prices to unsustainable levels and does not operate on a for profit basis.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Healthcare is so expensive because of gov. intervention, frivolous lawsuits and losers abusing the ER because they have sand in their vagina. Healthcare is not a universal right, it is an individual responsibility.


This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

?

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

America (assuming USA) is not the country that has the most freedoms. That?s a rumour.

A summery of different freedom ranks (mostly US based):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...reedom#Summary

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by Tread

America (assuming USA) is not the country that has the most freedoms. That?s a rumour.

A summery of different freedom ranks (mostly US based):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...reedom#Summary

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

I am inclined to disagree with the list there Tread. Anything that lists UK as a bastion of freedom is very skewed given their recent activities:

Cops using drones to spy on people in the name of "public safety": http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...ce-plan-drones

Family kicked out of their house after squatter took control of it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Christmas.html

Making self-defense illegal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ith-knife.html

Even their own citizens are saying that Britain sucks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-itself.html

Afterall, they have stupid internet laws that can be made up on the spot!: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20...w-interne.html

Hell, you can't even sell shit on e-Bay anymore!: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...013016,00.html

Sweden was even talking about a "man tax" simply for being a man!: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive.../gay100804.htm

Sorry, but that does not sound very much like freedom...

[Talvenada]

ANGRY:

What about the people who run into bad luck through no fault of their own?

The Conse 'Pub response is: their family, friends, neighbors and charities are suppose to fix it. Why? So that Conse 'Pubs don't foot the bill for someone less fortunate. Would a Conse 'Pub be that friend, family member or neighbor? Sure. Your words say it all.

YOUR WORDS:

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

THREAD:

Conse 'Pubs look only for that which proves they're right, and anything else is ignored.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

What about the people who run into bad luck through no fault of their own?

The Conse 'Pub response is: their family, friends, neighbors and charities are suppose to fix it. Why? So that Conse 'Pubs don't foot the bill for someone less fortunate. Would a Conse 'Pub be that friend, family member or neighbor? Sure. Your words say it all.

YOUR WORDS:

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you.

You left out a bit there:

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

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?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

Ahhh. The old "guilty of success" card...

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

[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 of Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

So, there are NO exceptions? Maybe 1 or 2 out of millions?

In theory it works. In reality not so much.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY of Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

So, there are NO exceptions? Maybe 1 or 2 out of millions?

In theory it works. In reality not so much.

TAL

There are exceptions but bad luck is no excuse for prior planning and risk mitigation.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

[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

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

It's important because the opposition to FDR, Obama and govrmt. programs labels that as socialism.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

There are exceptions but bad luck is no excuse for prior planning and risk mitigation.

ANGRY:

So, what constitutes someone who'd qualify for your charity?

What's the big deal about adding to a topic being a distortion?

I've found that Conse 'Pubs want to narrow a conversation to avoid being exposed for having positions that are contradictory.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

ANGRY:

I want to find out where you stand, because a lot of your points appear to be Libertarian: to the right of Neo-Cons.

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?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

[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

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

ANGRY:

You wrote that the govrmt. interfering is totalitarian, and destructive to liberty. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin say the exact same thing. You put yourself there, and I didn't imply that you agree with the other things they say.


TAL

[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:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

There is an organization here in CA called The State Victims of Crime that I regularly donate to because they help out people who have had their things stolen or damaged. It helped out my sister after her house got ruined when police lobbed in 18 canisters of CS gas to get the criminals who had holed up in there out. That I view as a worthy cause. I also donate to the local LGBT rights group here in SD(their name escapes me at the moment). Breast cancer research is also one of those things that are a worthy cause. They are for the advancement and furthering of people, rather than handouts that people tend to abuse.

If someone that I know has been crippled because they were injured by a drunk driver, I will gladly donate to help them out. You can only predict so much; you cannot predict when a drunk driver might hit you or when a robber breaks into your home.

However, if it was preventable and it was incurred due to laziness, apathy and /or general irresponsibility on that persons part, I will not hesitate to tell them to fuck off.

Welfare bums and the sort are parasites because they are not productive and pull the "victim of society" bullshit to get the government into giving them handouts.

If someone can get something for free, why work for it, right? Just remember that when you see the taxes taken out of your check. 99% of the time, it is going to someone who is leeching off of your tax dollars.

[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:

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.