what if what? Ok so you are trying to get employed by the govt. I guess it would come down to yeah, they will hire you ,or no they will not? What are you getting at?God Save the Queen wrote:
yeah, what if?lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm, you got a question here? Ok? What if?God Save the Queen wrote:
what if youre trying to get employed by the governmen
I forgot
Another quality Obama voter for ya folks.God Save the Queen wrote:
I forgot
another DST fag thats takes his internet self image a little way too far.
Barak o bama motherfucker!
i'm the president of hitting that ass.
i'm the president of hitting that ass.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
yeah, that is me, always worried about my "image" in DST lol.God Save the Queen wrote:
another DST fag thats takes his internet self image a little way too far.
you want to hit obamas ass? erm.... i thought you liked the tang dude?m3thod wrote:
Barak o bama motherfucker!
i'm the president of hitting that ass.
usmarine wrote:
you want to hit obamas ass? erm.... i thought you liked the tang dude?m3thod wrote:
Barak o bama motherfucker!
i'm the president of hitting that ass.
edit
obama is still a cunt just the lesser of 2 evils.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-08-22 18:47:12)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Surely they advocate a certain amount of checks and balances? Otherwise they're idiots. Unquestioned carrying of the under-achievers is simply not sustainable. I feel sorry for you guys sometimes that you are stuck with the two party system, extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism - both of which are stupid and ridiculous. America needs a third major party: the Common Sense & Moderation party!lowing wrote:
What do you mean you would be surprised if an American politician tried to put forth such a plan? Liberal democrats want nothing less than this. What on earth do you think they use as leverage to draw all of the under achievment voters? Promises of a better life without any extra effort on their part, through more taxation on the rest of us which forces us to work even harder in the long run to maintain our own status quo.Braddock wrote:
I don't know to be honest...I probably read your OP's and take offence at your blanket statements about 'liberals' when you are in fact referring to the American brand of liberalism which appears to be a horse of different colour altogether.lowing wrote:
Well since I have on several occations in discussions such as this have always championed for care for the truely "unlucky", why are you always insisting on arguing with me over it?
Any brand of political thinking that advocates carrying the willingly lazy is pure madness and I'd be truly surprised if any American politician tried to put forward such a plan.
Surely they do not. They advocate control over everyones lives under the guise of "how can you make it with out us"? They want nothing less than to control our lives and our future. Examples are seen in their desire to control payroll for the rich, control retirement, control education, control medical. The liberal democrats want nothing less than to have its citizens under the thumb of big brother. They do this by pandering to the MAJORITY non-rich and mis-informing them that the "evil rich" is lurking and the only way to protect yourselves is to get underthe security blanket THAT THEY provide. All ya gotta do is vote for them into power and all will be well.Braddock wrote:
Surely they advocate a certain amount of checks and balances? Otherwise they're idiots. Unquestioned carrying of the under-achievers is simply not sustainable. I feel sorry for you guys sometimes that you are stuck with the two party system, extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism - both of which are stupid and ridiculous. America needs a third major party: the Common Sense & Moderation party!lowing wrote:
What do you mean you would be surprised if an American politician tried to put forth such a plan? Liberal democrats want nothing less than this. What on earth do you think they use as leverage to draw all of the under achievment voters? Promises of a better life without any extra effort on their part, through more taxation on the rest of us which forces us to work even harder in the long run to maintain our own status quo.Braddock wrote:
I don't know to be honest...I probably read your OP's and take offence at your blanket statements about 'liberals' when you are in fact referring to the American brand of liberalism which appears to be a horse of different colour altogether.
Any brand of political thinking that advocates carrying the willingly lazy is pure madness and I'd be truly surprised if any American politician tried to put forward such a plan.
With all due respect your last post here is very opinion-based, which is fair enough because everyone has their opinion, but a left leaning person could paint just as evil a picture of the Republicans being a quasi-fascist state that run a de facto plutocracy keeping the poor man down while a rich elite prosper.lowing wrote:
Surely they do not. They advocate control over everyones lives under the guise of "how can you make it with out us"? They want nothing less than to control our lives and our future. Examples are seen in their desire to control payroll for the rich, control retirement, control education, control medical. The liberal democrats want nothing less than to have its citizens under the thumb of big brother. They do this by pandering to the MAJORITY non-rich and mis-informing them that the "evil rich" is lurking and the only way to protect yourselves is to get underthe security blanket THAT THEY provide. All ya gotta do is vote for them into power and all will be well.Braddock wrote:
Surely they advocate a certain amount of checks and balances? Otherwise they're idiots. Unquestioned carrying of the under-achievers is simply not sustainable. I feel sorry for you guys sometimes that you are stuck with the two party system, extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism - both of which are stupid and ridiculous. America needs a third major party: the Common Sense & Moderation party!lowing wrote:
What do you mean you would be surprised if an American politician tried to put forth such a plan? Liberal democrats want nothing less than this. What on earth do you think they use as leverage to draw all of the under achievment voters? Promises of a better life without any extra effort on their part, through more taxation on the rest of us which forces us to work even harder in the long run to maintain our own status quo.
Are you saying the Democrats want to introduce a system where tax payers money is given to anyone who applies for welfare without any checks or balances to make sure the system is not abused? Is there any source online that outlines their plans? Because I find it hard to believe, given that it would seem completely unsustainable in my opinion.
I am suggesting that the democrats prop themselves up as the Roobin Hood that will protect us lowly peasants from the evil rich, all we have to do is vote them in power. It is ironic though that the democrats are just as rich as those they seek to protect us from, and got that way by using the same methods.Braddock wrote:
With all due respect your last post here is very opinion-based, which is fair enough because everyone has their opinion, but a left leaning person could paint just as evil a picture of the Republicans being a quasi-fascist state that run a de facto plutocracy keeping the poor man down while a rich elite prosper.lowing wrote:
Surely they do not. They advocate control over everyones lives under the guise of "how can you make it with out us"? They want nothing less than to control our lives and our future. Examples are seen in their desire to control payroll for the rich, control retirement, control education, control medical. The liberal democrats want nothing less than to have its citizens under the thumb of big brother. They do this by pandering to the MAJORITY non-rich and mis-informing them that the "evil rich" is lurking and the only way to protect yourselves is to get underthe security blanket THAT THEY provide. All ya gotta do is vote for them into power and all will be well.Braddock wrote:
Surely they advocate a certain amount of checks and balances? Otherwise they're idiots. Unquestioned carrying of the under-achievers is simply not sustainable. I feel sorry for you guys sometimes that you are stuck with the two party system, extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism - both of which are stupid and ridiculous. America needs a third major party: the Common Sense & Moderation party!
Are you saying the Democrats want to introduce a system where tax payers money is given to anyone who applies for welfare without any checks or balances to make sure the system is not abused? Is there any source online that outlines their plans? Because I find it hard to believe, given that it would seem completely unsustainable in my opinion.
I am saying I can take care of myself, I do not want or need the govt. in my business. How about you?
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-24 01:53:27)
I'm not arguing with you here (for a change!) about one party being better than another, I've always said both sides in US politics are equally as bad when you boil them down...the Republicans just get more flack from non-Americans because they are a bit more brazen on the world stage (though the Dems are no angels on this front either). I can fully understand the criticism they receive from many people on a variety of domestic issues.lowing wrote:
I am suggesting that the democrats prop themselves up as the Roobin Hood that will protect us lowly peasants from the evil rich, all we have to do is vote them in power. It is ironic though that the democrats are just as rich as those they seek to protect us from, and got that way by using the same methods.Braddock wrote:
With all due respect your last post here is very opinion-based, which is fair enough because everyone has their opinion, but a left leaning person could paint just as evil a picture of the Republicans being a quasi-fascist state that run a de facto plutocracy keeping the poor man down while a rich elite prosper.lowing wrote:
Surely they do not. They advocate control over everyones lives under the guise of "how can you make it with out us"? They want nothing less than to control our lives and our future. Examples are seen in their desire to control payroll for the rich, control retirement, control education, control medical. The liberal democrats want nothing less than to have its citizens under the thumb of big brother. They do this by pandering to the MAJORITY non-rich and mis-informing them that the "evil rich" is lurking and the only way to protect yourselves is to get underthe security blanket THAT THEY provide. All ya gotta do is vote for them into power and all will be well.
Are you saying the Democrats want to introduce a system where tax payers money is given to anyone who applies for welfare without any checks or balances to make sure the system is not abused? Is there any source online that outlines their plans? Because I find it hard to believe, given that it would seem completely unsustainable in my opinion.
I am saying I can take care of myself, I do not want or need the govt. in my business.
I myself don't agree with the Government being able to micro-manage every aspect of the life of the citizen. A Government with too much power is rarely a good thing in my opinion (in fact that's the reason I oppose the powers and measures allowed in the supposed 'war on terror', it's not that I don't want terrorists caught, it's because I don't want a Government that can act like terrorists themselves without fear of retribution - but that's another topic altogether).
I believe in Capitalism with a conscience and that requires a delicate balance between competitive business and collective social effort. This ideology has about as much love for unpoliced welfare as it does for cutthroat Capitalism i.e. none. You simply cannot have unchecked, unpoliced handouts for people and expect to have a competitive and successful economy. Welfare should be a form of assistance not existence, otherwise why bother working in life at all? In Europe it is no fun being on welfare and it's not a desired lifestyle by any means.
Fair enough and how much does you capitalism with a conscience cost you in income tax as well as every other tax you have to pay from your EARNED income, to take care of those that do not EARN an income? Money is power and Like it or not, your govt. have got you by the balls, they have your money, have forced you into govt. controlled medical finanical, and social programs, and even has taken away your right to protect yourself. If you do not think you are govt. controlled you are not thinking too clearly.Braddock wrote:
I'm not arguing with you here (for a change!) about one party being better than another, I've always said both sides in US politics are equally as bad when you boil them down...the Republicans just get more flack from non-Americans because they are a bit more brazen on the world stage (though the Dems are no angels on this front either). I can fully understand the criticism they receive from many people on a variety of domestic issues.lowing wrote:
I am suggesting that the democrats prop themselves up as the Roobin Hood that will protect us lowly peasants from the evil rich, all we have to do is vote them in power. It is ironic though that the democrats are just as rich as those they seek to protect us from, and got that way by using the same methods.Braddock wrote:
With all due respect your last post here is very opinion-based, which is fair enough because everyone has their opinion, but a left leaning person could paint just as evil a picture of the Republicans being a quasi-fascist state that run a de facto plutocracy keeping the poor man down while a rich elite prosper.
Are you saying the Democrats want to introduce a system where tax payers money is given to anyone who applies for welfare without any checks or balances to make sure the system is not abused? Is there any source online that outlines their plans? Because I find it hard to believe, given that it would seem completely unsustainable in my opinion.
I am saying I can take care of myself, I do not want or need the govt. in my business.
I myself don't agree with the Government being able to micro-manage every aspect of the life of the citizen. A Government with too much power is rarely a good thing in my opinion (in fact that's the reason I oppose the powers and measures allowed in the supposed 'war on terror', it's not that I don't want terrorists caught, it's because I don't want a Government that can act like terrorists themselves without fear of retribution - but that's another topic altogether).
I believe in Capitalism with a conscience and that requires a delicate balance between competitive business and collective social effort. This ideology has about as much love for unpoliced welfare as it does for cutthroat Capitalism i.e. none. You simply cannot have unchecked, unpoliced handouts for people and expect to have a competitive and successful economy. Welfare should be a form of assistance not existence, otherwise why bother working in life at all? In Europe it is no fun being on welfare and it's not a desired lifestyle by any means.
But not all the tax goes to the open-handed lowing. Look at Norway as an example of the extreme end of Capitalism with a conscience - they have huge tax brackets (as much as 50% I believe) but the upside of this is one of the highest living standards in the world. Great healthcare for free, free education, free childcare (from prenatal care right through to child daycare) and compulsory pension schemes. It is a classic example of getting value for your tax money.lowing wrote:
Fair enough and how much does you capitalism with a conscience cost you in income tax as well as every other tax you have to pay from your EARNED income, to take care of those that do not EARN an income? Money is power and Like it or not, your govt. have got you by the balls, they have your money, have forced you into govt. controlled medical finanical, and social programs, and even has taken away your right to protect yourself. If you do not think you are govt. controlled you are not thinking too clearly.Braddock wrote:
I'm not arguing with you here (for a change!) about one party being better than another, I've always said both sides in US politics are equally as bad when you boil them down...the Republicans just get more flack from non-Americans because they are a bit more brazen on the world stage (though the Dems are no angels on this front either). I can fully understand the criticism they receive from many people on a variety of domestic issues.lowing wrote:
I am suggesting that the democrats prop themselves up as the Roobin Hood that will protect us lowly peasants from the evil rich, all we have to do is vote them in power. It is ironic though that the democrats are just as rich as those they seek to protect us from, and got that way by using the same methods.
I am saying I can take care of myself, I do not want or need the govt. in my business.
I myself don't agree with the Government being able to micro-manage every aspect of the life of the citizen. A Government with too much power is rarely a good thing in my opinion (in fact that's the reason I oppose the powers and measures allowed in the supposed 'war on terror', it's not that I don't want terrorists caught, it's because I don't want a Government that can act like terrorists themselves without fear of retribution - but that's another topic altogether).
I believe in Capitalism with a conscience and that requires a delicate balance between competitive business and collective social effort. This ideology has about as much love for unpoliced welfare as it does for cutthroat Capitalism i.e. none. You simply cannot have unchecked, unpoliced handouts for people and expect to have a competitive and successful economy. Welfare should be a form of assistance not existence, otherwise why bother working in life at all? In Europe it is no fun being on welfare and it's not a desired lifestyle by any means.
You touch on the biggest illusion of it all, "free". Nothing is free, the EARNERS are the ones paying for all that "FREE" services you so proudly hail.Braddock wrote:
But not all the tax goes to the open-handed lowing. Look at Norway as an example of the extreme end of Capitalism with a conscience - they have huge tax brackets (as much as 50% I believe) but the upside of this is one of the highest living standards in the world. Great healthcare for free, free education, free childcare (from prenatal care right through to child daycare) and compulsory pension schemes. It is a classic example of getting value for your tax money.lowing wrote:
Fair enough and how much does you capitalism with a conscience cost you in income tax as well as every other tax you have to pay from your EARNED income, to take care of those that do not EARN an income? Money is power and Like it or not, your govt. have got you by the balls, they have your money, have forced you into govt. controlled medical finanical, and social programs, and even has taken away your right to protect yourself. If you do not think you are govt. controlled you are not thinking too clearly.Braddock wrote:
I'm not arguing with you here (for a change!) about one party being better than another, I've always said both sides in US politics are equally as bad when you boil them down...the Republicans just get more flack from non-Americans because they are a bit more brazen on the world stage (though the Dems are no angels on this front either). I can fully understand the criticism they receive from many people on a variety of domestic issues.
I myself don't agree with the Government being able to micro-manage every aspect of the life of the citizen. A Government with too much power is rarely a good thing in my opinion (in fact that's the reason I oppose the powers and measures allowed in the supposed 'war on terror', it's not that I don't want terrorists caught, it's because I don't want a Government that can act like terrorists themselves without fear of retribution - but that's another topic altogether).
I believe in Capitalism with a conscience and that requires a delicate balance between competitive business and collective social effort. This ideology has about as much love for unpoliced welfare as it does for cutthroat Capitalism i.e. none. You simply cannot have unchecked, unpoliced handouts for people and expect to have a competitive and successful economy. Welfare should be a form of assistance not existence, otherwise why bother working in life at all? In Europe it is no fun being on welfare and it's not a desired lifestyle by any means.
The US has capitalism with a conscience. We have social services, we have grants, low interest loans, etc for anyone to endulge in. The EARNERS are already paying out the ass for this shit. Now, here come the liberals telling the poor and the rich that the rich and the middle class are not paying ENOUGH to help. Instead of tellng the poor they need to do more to help themselves.
And Norway certainly seems to have its citizens, dependant on its govt. doesn't it? How proud they must be
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-24 03:07:14)
When I say free I mean free in the sense that their taxes have already paid for it.lowing wrote:
You touch on the biggest illusion of it all, "free". Nothing is free, the EARNERS are the ones paying for all that "FREE" services you so proudly hail.Braddock wrote:
But not all the tax goes to the open-handed lowing. Look at Norway as an example of the extreme end of Capitalism with a conscience - they have huge tax brackets (as much as 50% I believe) but the upside of this is one of the highest living standards in the world. Great healthcare for free, free education, free childcare (from prenatal care right through to child daycare) and compulsory pension schemes. It is a classic example of getting value for your tax money.lowing wrote:
Fair enough and how much does you capitalism with a conscience cost you in income tax as well as every other tax you have to pay from your EARNED income, to take care of those that do not EARN an income? Money is power and Like it or not, your govt. have got you by the balls, they have your money, have forced you into govt. controlled medical finanical, and social programs, and even has taken away your right to protect yourself. If you do not think you are govt. controlled you are not thinking too clearly.
The US has capitalism with a conscience. We have social services, we have grants, low interest loans, etc for anyone to endulge in. The EARNERS are already paying out the ass for this shit. Now, here come the liberals telling the poor and the rich that the rich and the middle class are not paying ENOUGH to help. Instead of tellng the poor they need to do more to help themselves.
And Norway certainly seems to have its citizens, dependant on its govt. doesn't it? How proud they must be
You say the earners are paying for all of these services and that the freeloaders just milk the system and yet Norway's unemployment rate is only 2.4%, beating Capitalist USA's rate of 4.8%, so the argument that such a system doesn't work and only encourages laziness doesn't hold true. And whether you like it or not Norway has one of the highest standards of living in the world...that's what people want at the end of the day.
Lowing, what are you gonna do now your president will be a liberal black Muslim?
Don't forget an America hater who's not even American!sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, what are you gonna do now your president will be a liberal black Muslim?
Yeah Braddock, I know what you meant as to what "free" means. It still ISN'T FREE. The EARNERS are flipping the bill for everyone else. Or in Norway the rich do not pay any more taxes than the middle class. What percentage of tax is paid for by the rich as compared to everyone else? Like I said, the EARNERS are paying for all of Norway's "free" shit.Braddock wrote:
When I say free I mean free in the sense that their taxes have already paid for it.lowing wrote:
You touch on the biggest illusion of it all, "free". Nothing is free, the EARNERS are the ones paying for all that "FREE" services you so proudly hail.Braddock wrote:
But not all the tax goes to the open-handed lowing. Look at Norway as an example of the extreme end of Capitalism with a conscience - they have huge tax brackets (as much as 50% I believe) but the upside of this is one of the highest living standards in the world. Great healthcare for free, free education, free childcare (from prenatal care right through to child daycare) and compulsory pension schemes. It is a classic example of getting value for your tax money.
The US has capitalism with a conscience. We have social services, we have grants, low interest loans, etc for anyone to endulge in. The EARNERS are already paying out the ass for this shit. Now, here come the liberals telling the poor and the rich that the rich and the middle class are not paying ENOUGH to help. Instead of tellng the poor they need to do more to help themselves.
And Norway certainly seems to have its citizens, dependant on its govt. doesn't it? How proud they must be
You say the earners are paying for all of these services and that the freeloaders just milk the system and yet Norway's unemployment rate is only 2.4%, beating Capitalist USA's rate of 4.8%, so the argument that such a system doesn't work and only encourages laziness doesn't hold true. And whether you like it or not Norway has one of the highest standards of living in the world...that's what people want at the end of the day.
Of course Norway should have a high standard of living, so does a lion in a zoo. But the lion still is dependant on its keepers isn't it?
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-24 08:00:00)
his mom is white. so, he aint black.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, what are you gonna do now your president will be a liberal black Muslim?
Probably break down and cry, as I wave good bye to more of my money to take care of the worthless, who put him in office.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, what are you gonna do now your president will be a liberal black Muslim?
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-24 07:49:29)
William Beveridge must be like the antichrist to lowing.....
I hadda look him up I won't lie, but man, what a jerk.Bertster7 wrote:
William Beveridge must be like the antichrist to lowing.....
youre the moron that takes what I write seriously and actually believes its a reflection on how I think. yes, you take this internet shit a tad too seriously.lowing wrote:
yeah, that is me, always worried about my "image" in DST lol.God Save the Queen wrote:
another DST fag thats takes his internet self image a little way too far.