A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
pankajdaga wrote: Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. Quite a leap in logic here. Precisely what do you base these conclusions on? pankajdaga wrote: No wonder you have so many fans. Who the fuck is running a popularity contest? And just for grins, tell me how many people sneak into your country becuase of the quality of life offered there. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: And just for grins, tell me how many people sneak into your country becuase of the quality of life offered there. ROTFL - got my 5, and made my day. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
JoeSox wrote: Why do we have to win all the time? Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. JoeSox wrote: It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. JoeSox wrote: I also think Kerry is a Thinker, Maybe in the sense of Rodin - but a real thinker - nope. What has he ever done in his life except marry rich women and politics. GB has at least had to struggle a bit and one having overcome adversity is only made stronger by it. And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. Haven't you ever heard of cooperation? Last time I checked, peaceful intelligent beings have learned to cooperate. Richard Stringer wrote: Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. Yeah, it's funny how that works. Richard Stringer wrote: And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. I don't know Ann Richards so how can I ask her? Didn't Bush and Kerry both graduate from the same University?:rolleyes::doh: Didn't Bush and Kerry both fight in Vietnam? Oh wait[^]. What was the biggest conflict Bush help prevent while he served? Hurricane Camille? Impressive.:| Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? If you mean are people here selfish, I would say yes, and more and more. If not, "we" wouldn't have elected a conservative president, or there wouldn't be so many abuses of the social protections Michael A. Barnhart wrote: People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants And a Nation should display solidarity towards its citizen, and not abandoning them when they are in need. Giving to its citizen the right to live is the less a Nation can do, and for this ensuring Health Care for anybody is IMO the first article of the social contract. WTF, "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. Of course there are some abuses, some people live at the expense of the Society, but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. In a perfect world, I don't see the problem of the society fitting the needs of everybody? Did you never watch Star Trek? :-D Michael A. Barnhart wrote: So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? My first reaction is that it's sad the professors have to care about buying papers and pens, it shouldn't be part of their job. Next, to answer your question, the selfish ones are definitively the "profiters" (the ones who take profit), and these ones should be punished because they exploit the collectivity and endanger the whole system. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: To be honest they had been taught this way Exactly. Everything is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
First I will say I believe interpretation of words between us is not as clear as we would like. I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. K(arl) wrote: Exactly. Everything is about education. I think we agree, just what is the scope of education? I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. K(arl) wrote: and not abandoning them when they are in need. When did any of us suggest abandoning people? Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? K(arl) wrote: "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. I never said or implied that at all. I do know some that would choose to live poor versus taking any responsibility. K(arl) wrote: but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Some bad apples? 100% of this example group is not some, it is an entire segement. But back to what is education. K(arl) wrote: In a perfect world Yes, but we do not. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. Haven't you ever heard of cooperation? Last time I checked, peaceful intelligent beings have learned to cooperate. Richard Stringer wrote: Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. Yeah, it's funny how that works. Richard Stringer wrote: And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. I don't know Ann Richards so how can I ask her? Didn't Bush and Kerry both graduate from the same University?:rolleyes::doh: Didn't Bush and Kerry both fight in Vietnam? Oh wait[^]. What was the biggest conflict Bush help prevent while he served? Hurricane Camille? Impressive.:| Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Haven't you ever heard of cooperation? Last time I checked, peaceful intelligent beings have learned to cooperate Yea Joe you are really just a bit out of it. Cooperative baseball - bet that would be a blast - hey what about cooperative boxing - no you can hit me now because I just hit you - fair is fair. Cooperation and competition are two seperate and distinct items. JoeSox wrote: I don't know Ann Richards so how can I ask her? Just thought with your vast knowledge of GWB you would know her - ex Democratic Gov of Texas. Made the keynote speech at the Demo Convention during the Clinton Presidency. Said she could beat old GWB easy - last seen as a lobbist in Austin - still talking about how easy itv would be to beat GWB. JoeSox wrote: Didn't Bush and Kerry both fight in Vietnam? Well I spent 13 months there and lets just say I took old GWB's place. Who tookm Kerrys when he left after 4 1/2 months to go home, give aid and succor to the enemy, throw his "ribbons" away and get into politics. If Kerry has any sense at all you will never hear him say anything about Nam in the debates. JoeSox wrote: What was the biggest conflict Bush help prevent while he served? What did Kerry do except play the fool. He was trying to out Kennedy JFK. JoeSox wrote: Hurricane Camille? Impressive I was in Gulfport MS in 69 when Camille hit. You are right - it was impressive. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
K(arl) wrote: What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation Actually I do I just have an adversion to centralized power. Remember, we broke away from a monarchy and there is an inherent fear of a strong central power. There has always been a states rights versus centralized government "argument". K(arl) wrote: you seem to consider it as your enemy Not really, just something to be wary of. By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. K(arl) wrote: If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. Nope. That would permit 3 states (New York, California and Texas) to control teh rest of the country. It simply wouldn't work. K(arl) wrote: What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one. Yes, you are correct. The state is closer to the local population and should represent the wishes, desires and dreams of that locale. When it gets to be comething I disagree with I can simply move to a state that more clearly represnets the way I think. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Thanks for your explanations. Mike Gaskey wrote: By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government, just raising the cost to hundreds of thousands people killed, and next, I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Even armed with an AK-47, what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
The vast majority of people that received tax cuts in the U.S. were not the super rich, but the middle class. We outnumber them and we all got a tax cut. So, take a poor chap who does not invest, but has to use the tax cut to pay off the debt he incurred from buying his big screen tv. That debt payment didn't help anyone but him. Now he can go get another loan maybe. Or if he went out and bought a new tv with the money, it helps the tv shop, which helps its employees, which helps others, etc. But the money's purchasing power diminishes after each step in the process. Let's say $600 for a new tv is divided evenly among 10 employees, so they now have $60 to spend on a new muffler for their car, which is spread among 10 mechanics who now have only $6 to spend, etc. See what I'm saying? Now if a middle class man, who has little or no debt, like myself, gets a tax cut and invests it in his home, that helps local business the same as the low income example above AND it increases the property value of the home. When the home is sold, it will sell for more than it would have before the improvements. That's more of a longer term example, but it can be used with any investment scenario. Investing in foreign markets will still bring money into the US economy through the interest earned by the US investor. It won't have as great an effect, but it will have one none the less.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: The vast majority of people that received tax cuts in the U.S. were not the super rich, but the middle class. We outnumber them and we all got a tax cut. I'm not sure everybody agrees with you: Daschle said Bush's proposed $2.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut would spend almost all of the current surplus, leaving only 4 percent for other priorities. He also said it is unfair because the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans would get 43 percent of the benefit. [^] I'm searching for data on the tax cut repartition but haven't found undeniable ones yet. If you have some, it could help to settle that point. Jason Henderson wrote: So, take a poor chap who does not invest, but has to use the tax cut to pay off the debt he incurred from buying his big screen tv. That debt payment didn't help anyone but You're making weird hypotheses there! Did the 35.8 millions people living below the poverty line contract debts to buy hi-screen TVs? It sounds like a caricature to me. Jason Henderson wrote: Or if he went out and bought a new tv with the money, it helps the tv shop, which helps its employees, which helps others, etc. But the money's purchasing power diminishes after each step in the process. Let's say $600 for a new tv is divided evenly among 10 employees, so they now have $60 to spend on a new muffler for their car, which is spread among 10 mechanics who now have only $6 to spend, etc. See what I'm saying? Here's a more interesting sample, and IMO more realistic. One, it shows how the 600$ are "reused" many times in the process and finally represent more than 600$. Two, it shows how it will profit US people for sure. Three, it shows it adds a cumulative effect: if the employees of your example also have a 600$ tax cut, they will benefit from 600 + 60 = 660$ . Four, it shows how the tax-cut can be propagated amongst the population: folliwng your example, in the end 100 mechanics will benefit from the initial cut of one! Jason Henderson wrote: and invests it in his home, that helps local business the same as the low income example above AND it increases the property value of the home. When the home is sold, it will sell for more than it would have before the improvements I don't get that
-
Remember, the very people who created our central federal government were suspecious of it themselves, considering it, at best, a necessary evil. We are culturally imbued as a people with a deep seated mistrust of centralized power - which is precisely why we have never had a dicator and never will. Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems. Traditionally, Americans instinctively do not want to be 'taken care of' and we do not view government as having any responsibility to do for us that which we can do for ourselves just as well. Until very recently, we have always chosen to honor the founding principles of our nation and to deny power to the government that, while it could care for us, could just as easily be used to control us. That government is best which governs least. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
:confused:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
you are suggesting to mutilate human beings: are you sure you wouldn't be mutilated too?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Damn - my lengthy reply has been killed by IE. Yes, I'm serious. We spend far too much time defending the rights of adults to be terrible parents, and not enough time worrying about the rights of children who are ( through no fault of their own ) born to idiots. And through environmental conditioning, they grow into people who offer nothing to society but a bill for their dole cheque. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Even if the problem you mention is real, I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered. First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. That remembers you something, right? There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
First I will say I believe interpretation of words between us is not as clear as we would like. I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. K(arl) wrote: Exactly. Everything is about education. I think we agree, just what is the scope of education? I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. K(arl) wrote: and not abandoning them when they are in need. When did any of us suggest abandoning people? Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? K(arl) wrote: "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. I never said or implied that at all. I do know some that would choose to live poor versus taking any responsibility. K(arl) wrote: but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Some bad apples? 100% of this example group is not some, it is an entire segement. But back to what is education. K(arl) wrote: In a perfect world Yes, but we do not. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. If we were entirely agreeing, we wouldn't be discussing together :-D "- Hey, what do you think of that? - Waoh, that's cool - So you agree with? - Yep, entirely. - hum...ok then, bye!" Not very interesting, isn't it? :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. I totally agree. Abusing the safety nets offered by the Nation is for me a serious offense because abusing the Nation is abusing all the individuals forming the Nation. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When did any of us suggest abandoning people? True, my apologies. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? There isn't always a family. There are cases where the family is heavily broken. There are cases where the family will be broken because of that. And the Nation is just another family. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I never said or implied that at all That's why I quoted the word "you". By "you", I meant people arguing against the Welfare State.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. If we were entirely agreeing, we wouldn't be discussing together :-D "- Hey, what do you think of that? - Waoh, that's cool - So you agree with? - Yep, entirely. - hum...ok then, bye!" Not very interesting, isn't it? :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. I totally agree. Abusing the safety nets offered by the Nation is for me a serious offense because abusing the Nation is abusing all the individuals forming the Nation. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When did any of us suggest abandoning people? True, my apologies. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? There isn't always a family. There are cases where the family is heavily broken. There are cases where the family will be broken because of that. And the Nation is just another family. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I never said or implied that at all That's why I quoted the word "you". By "you", I meant people arguing against the Welfare State.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
In general, fine. K(arl) wrote: There isn't always a family. There are cases where the family is heavily broken. There are cases where the family will be broken because of that. And the Nation is just another family. I agree with this trend. I can not be close to my parents and they have a neighbor who I know is there for them and appreciate it. By the same token, my elderly neighbors have limited family close (one second cousin) and we are happy to help them when in need. The family is and can be more than just parents and siblings. The spilt with us, is do we concentrate on a national family for the answer or local. To me the national family as the principle provider is just to distant to know what the local needs are, with out undue layers of regulations. Also the historical trend in the US to emphasie the individual, also applies imho, to individual to individual care. Need to go. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy. But in a 200+ year history we have not. Rather answers that question. No? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Thanks for your explanations. Mike Gaskey wrote: By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government, just raising the cost to hundreds of thousands people killed, and next, I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Even armed with an AK-47, what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: Opinions are like ...., oh, never mind. K(arl) wrote: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government That was not individuals or small militias versus an overbearing central government, it was 2 halves of a country, two armies at war. K(arl) wrote: I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Consider the overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Ever compare the size of a bee to the size of a human? Try getting stung by a swarm. K(arl) wrote: what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10? The same (well, similar) question could have been asked of a rag tag citizenry versus a well trained British army, could it not? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
K(arl) wrote: I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: Opinions are like ...., oh, never mind. K(arl) wrote: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government That was not individuals or small militias versus an overbearing central government, it was 2 halves of a country, two armies at war. K(arl) wrote: I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Consider the overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Ever compare the size of a bee to the size of a human? Try getting stung by a swarm. K(arl) wrote: what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10? The same (well, similar) question could have been asked of a rag tag citizenry versus a well trained British army, could it not? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: Consider the overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Ever compare the size of a bee to the size of a human? Try getting stung by a swarm So at best you could try a guerilla warfare. In case of a civil war I think it would degenerate to a blood bath at best. And anyway, guerilleros have no problem to find weapons, may they be legal or not. Mike Gaskey wrote: The same (well, similar) question could have been asked of a rag tag citizenry versus a well trained British army, could it not? Sorry to disturb your belief and national pride, but without the help of an organized army (the French one BTW), the insurgents would have been wiped out: "When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If you're a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters. Hell, most of you probably couldn't name three major battles from it, but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where we bottled up Cornwallis's army, forced the Brits' surrender and pretty much won the war. Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won Yorktown for us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the shit out of the British navy when they tried to break the siege. Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid."[^]. Et toc. Also, the firepower, mobility and capacity to strike of a 18th century army can't be compared to today capacities. A flight of F-16 would disband any "civilian" troop within a minute.
-
K(arl) wrote: Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy. But in a 200+ year history we have not. Rather answers that question. No? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
"You" just had a civil war to avoid implosion. The big chance of the US is to have no neighbouring country having the power or the will to invade it. If the US had known a military defeat on its soil, I'm not sure the Republic would have survived. Ok, ok, that's pure speculation.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
The U.S. can be considered an 'experiment' in controlled anarchy. The threat of anarchy was not lost on those who designed our federal system. They merely thought the risk was worth it. But, that is what is so important about the encouragement of religious sentiment at a grass roots social level. As long as there are strongly held religious sentiments amoung the people, as long as the people bind themselves to well defined moral beliefs, than there is not too much to worry about. Those who are inclined to adher to religion are not inclined to adher to anarchy. But, as you are correct to observe, certainly, as we the people become less inclined to police our own behavior, the closer we come to a choice between anarchy or a much more centralized definition of federalism. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Even if the problem you mention is real, I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered. First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. That remembers you something, right? There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Even if the problem you mention is real It is. You should live where I live ( good area, but right next to the single mother capital of Tasmania ) K(arl) wrote: I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered Who said anything about mutilating people. I'm talking about making it impossible for people to breed, for a time. Forcing people to have an injection every six months or so that makes them sterile. By forcing, I mean, if you're on benefits, and you want to keep them, you line up. K(arl) wrote: First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? This is the sort of pussy talk I am on about. Why is it that some deliberately uneducated, unemployed by choice bum has the right to push my standard of living down by increasing the welfare bill of my government, and to make kids they obviously are not in a state to care for ? Why does no-one care about the rights of kids born into this sort of environment ? K(arl) wrote: Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity. There's no dignity in being a dole bludger, there's no dignity in popping out kids you don't want because the government will pay you. K(arl) wrote: The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. This is just plain idiocy. Discuss what I said, not your own hang ups. K(arl) wrote: There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education. In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
K(arl) wrote: Even if the problem you mention is real It is. You should live where I live ( good area, but right next to the single mother capital of Tasmania ) K(arl) wrote: I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered Who said anything about mutilating people. I'm talking about making it impossible for people to breed, for a time. Forcing people to have an injection every six months or so that makes them sterile. By forcing, I mean, if you're on benefits, and you want to keep them, you line up. K(arl) wrote: First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? This is the sort of pussy talk I am on about. Why is it that some deliberately uneducated, unemployed by choice bum has the right to push my standard of living down by increasing the welfare bill of my government, and to make kids they obviously are not in a state to care for ? Why does no-one care about the rights of kids born into this sort of environment ? K(arl) wrote: Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity. There's no dignity in being a dole bludger, there's no dignity in popping out kids you don't want because the government will pay you. K(arl) wrote: The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. This is just plain idiocy. Discuss what I said, not your own hang ups. K(arl) wrote: There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education. In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Who said anything about mutilating people. Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles [^] Christian Graus wrote: No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity Yes, also. We have the right to make mistakes. What the heck, that could even be a good definition for "Freedom" Christian Graus wrote: This is just plain idiocy Nonetheless, the concepts of eugenics and purification of the race are far too close for me. Christian Graus wrote: In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Waoh, your society really sucks! And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. Make a revolution.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
jan larsen wrote: Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? The US federal income tax system (for individuals) calculates your "taxable income" by summing all of your income (with a few exceptons) then subtracting specific deductions. Deductions can vary but in nearly all cases the deductions are smaller or not available to the rich. The amount of "payable taxes" is determined by calculating a percentage of "taxable income" (percentages are higher for the rich [approx 36%] than they are for middle class [approx 28% to %15]) then subtracting any tax credits. Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. jan larsen wrote: And what should poor people pay and why? I don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. jan larsen wrote: I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states Touche' :-O I suppose I deserved that. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Thanks for the explanation. From your reply, and Brian and Richards replies, I can see that the system isn't much different from the Danish model. The percentages are higher here though, our tax is combined by a state tax, church tax, county tax and some additionaæ percentages that, for some reason, are separated from the state tax. This compound tax percentage varies from about 51% to 54%. Now, if the income is more than about 300.000,00 DKK per year, there is an extra percentage added to the sum that exceeds that number. I can't remember exactly how much it is, but I believe it is a 10% add. The weird thing is, that this extra tax was meant for the rich, it's called top tax, but it hits the entire middle class. Mike Mullikin wrote: don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. I agree on giving jobs to the unemployed, but I don't think its an uncomplicated issue: 1. To give the unemployed jobs, there have to be jobs to employ. 2. While unemployed should accept that they have to move to get a job, there have to be exceptions like: One parent is unemployed, but could get a job if he moved to another city, but the other parent allready got a job. 3. A person has just finished her studies. The jobs she can get with her education, are all based in the two major cities (this is actually the situation for my girlfriend). She knows she can get a relevant job within 3 months, should she have to chase jobs around the country those three months? Ok, #3 is a bit silly, but #2 is actually quite common. And it all depends on #1. When a state is created, and its laws forced upon the citizens, the state is responsible for making up for the flaws of the system. If a citizen loses his job and there are no jobs to get, he can't just move out to the woods, he can't pick a piece of land somewhere and grow his own food. Historically, the problem was sometimes helped by shipping of the unemployed to far away places like USA, but that's not possible today :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleanin
-
Christian Graus wrote: Who said anything about mutilating people. Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles [^] Christian Graus wrote: No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity Yes, also. We have the right to make mistakes. What the heck, that could even be a good definition for "Freedom" Christian Graus wrote: This is just plain idiocy Nonetheless, the concepts of eugenics and purification of the race are far too close for me. Christian Graus wrote: In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Waoh, your society really sucks! And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. Make a revolution.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles *sigh* You need to accept my definition as being what I mean by the term 'chemical castration'. I obviously used the term in error, because I believe that this process actually stops people having sex. Like I said, I want to stop them giving birth if they cannot care for a child. K(arl) wrote: We have the right to make mistakes. Make your own mistakes, but don't inflict them on others, especially children. K(arl) wrote: your society really sucks! Hell, yes. K(arl) wrote: And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. The basic problem is that the majority are living off the government in one form or another. Once you have a state where most people are ignorant, the politicians must pander to that ignorance to get votes. I am ALL for society helping the poor, the better off helping those who need it. I am against people looking for a free ride, and more than that, people having children simply so they can get paid more money, then providing only minimal care and less love to kids they never wanted in the first place. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer