Perhaps, it is just that my unconditional compassion is reserved for the helpless. Not having or not wanting to work to betteryour situation warrants no compassion from me, let the liberals coddle them for votes.Turquoise wrote:
I only ask you this to differentiate you from certain other people who won't go named. You at least have some sense of compassion, and I respect you for that. Certain other people could learn to feel the same.lowing wrote:
Have I not always maintained my willingness to help those that can not help themselves, and those that are trying to help themselves? I have never had a probelm with a hand up, I do have a problem with (a way of life) hand out. Except for children and the disabled. As long as the ones I am helping are helping themselves to something other than my tax dollars I am a supporter.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* What about the people who do work who still can't feed their families? Surely, a little help for them is ok.
I have never gotten acknowledgement for that in this forum though, and it really surprises me how many of you give a shit for the leeches on society. I take an opinion that our tax money should be better spent on the people I described above. By burning off the tics that suck the life from our society there would be even more opportunity to save those that want and work for a better life. The worthless have a choice, get busy or starve. I will bet eventually they will get busy, if we made prison so bad that they would not concider that an option by trying criminal activity. What is so wrong with my beliefs?? I do not believe a sailing ship will get very far dragging an anchor. Do you??
Everyone has me labeled as a racist, neo-con, skinhead nazi or something. I don't get it. All I have ever endorsed is coddle the children and punish the criminals. For some reason, the liberal element takes offense to that notion.
But the fact is most people don't give to charity because they're generous, it's either for the warm fuzzies or because they like to be part of something. My evidence? Those damned rubber wrist bands! If people honestly wanted to give, they wouldn't need a fucking band.lowing wrote:
Ironically, I do agree with you, that is how it is viewed, however, what does this say? If I don't give I am a heartless bastard, if a do give, I am a insincere heartless bastard. Good grief.Bubbalo wrote:
But only enough to save face. Everyone knows image is worth giving away a few bucks.Turquoise wrote:
If you plan to stay in America, I suggest you gain some sense of compassion.
Turquoise, it's entirely possible that I give more money each year to the assholes you VERBALLY support than you make in a year, so compassion isn't something I lack, but unless I misread the Constitution, this country wasn't founded on tit-feeding the worthless.
Maybe YOU should move to Russia instead of trying to turn Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson's vision into Karl Marx's vision.
Maybe YOU should move to Russia instead of trying to turn Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson's vision into Karl Marx's vision.
lolm3thod wrote:
Not really. I just didnt understand what you wanted to debate:ATG wrote:
Wondering what American haters like you will have to say about a European slaughter.m3thod wrote:
.....and your point is?
I know what ya'll say when it happens here.
Gun restrictions?
Why people kill each other?
The world going down the toilet?
Zero hope for humanity?
Ya get me?
And oh ya! i really hate ALLLLLL Americans....wait a minute topal63 and GunSlinger to name two are cool d00ds i'd love to meet.....now who said that you have consistently misplaced disgust???
No.suomalainen_äijä wrote:
lolm3thod wrote:
Not really. I just didnt understand what you wanted to debate:ATG wrote:
Wondering what American haters like you will have to say about a European slaughter.
I know what ya'll say when it happens here.
Gun restrictions?
Why people kill each other?
The world going down the toilet?
Zero hope for humanity?
Ya get me?
And oh ya! i really hate ALLLLLL Americans....wait a minute topal63 and GunSlinger to name two are cool d00ds i'd love to meet.....now who said that you have consistently misplaced disgust???
Every time one of these shootings happen in America a whirllygig conversation begins that almost always involves the same charges and counter arguments from the usual suspects.
I didn't elaborate in the OP because I wanted raw commentary, which seems to have been a decent tactic in this case.
At least I didn't go
/discuss.
Yup yer right we all need to be validated on some level. Does that make the donation any less tangible? Should the needy turn down the gift because it was only done for a tax break or a wrist band? Even if the giver pays 150 bucks for a 20 cent wrist band, you can still find fault?Bubbalo wrote:
But the fact is most people don't give to charity because they're generous, it's either for the warm fuzzies or because they like to be part of something. My evidence? Those damned rubber wrist bands! If people honestly wanted to give, they wouldn't need a fucking band.lowing wrote:
Ironically, I do agree with you, that is how it is viewed, however, what does this say? If I don't give I am a heartless bastard, if a do give, I am a insincere heartless bastard. Good grief.Bubbalo wrote:
But only enough to save face. Everyone knows image is worth giving away a few bucks.
Maybe, but that's better than being a flagrant jackass....Bubbalo wrote:
But only enough to save face. Everyone knows image is worth giving away a few bucks.Turquoise wrote:
If you plan to stay in America, I suggest you gain some sense of compassion.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-07-29 10:51:20)
As another poster mentioned, that's the tricky part -- defining who is "helpless" and who is lazy. If it were easier to do, then I'd take your position.lowing wrote:
Perhaps, it is just that my unconditional compassion is reserved for the helpless. Not having or not wanting to work to betteryour situation warrants no compassion from me, let the liberals coddle them for votes.Turquoise wrote:
I only ask you this to differentiate you from certain other people who won't go named. You at least have some sense of compassion, and I respect you for that. Certain other people could learn to feel the same.lowing wrote:
Have I not always maintained my willingness to help those that can not help themselves, and those that are trying to help themselves? I have never had a probelm with a hand up, I do have a problem with (a way of life) hand out. Except for children and the disabled. As long as the ones I am helping are helping themselves to something other than my tax dollars I am a supporter.
I have never gotten acknowledgement for that in this forum though, and it really surprises me how many of you give a shit for the leeches on society. I take an opinion that our tax money should be better spent on the people I described above. By burning off the tics that suck the life from our society there would be even more opportunity to save those that want and work for a better life. The worthless have a choice, get busy or starve. I will bet eventually they will get busy, if we made prison so bad that they would not concider that an option by trying criminal activity. What is so wrong with my beliefs?? I do not believe a sailing ship will get very far dragging an anchor. Do you??
Everyone has me labeled as a racist, neo-con, skinhead nazi or something. I don't get it. All I have ever endorsed is coddle the children and punish the criminals. For some reason, the liberal element takes offense to that notion.
I'll concede with you on that, but at least give credit to people like Bill Gates. He donates more than anyone ever has, and it's in the form of worthwhile help.Bubbalo wrote:
But the fact is most people don't give to charity because they're generous, it's either for the warm fuzzies or because they like to be part of something. My evidence? Those damned rubber wrist bands! If people honestly wanted to give, they wouldn't need a fucking band.lowing wrote:
Ironically, I do agree with you, that is how it is viewed, however, what does this say? If I don't give I am a heartless bastard, if a do give, I am a insincere heartless bastard. Good grief.Bubbalo wrote:
But only enough to save face. Everyone knows image is worth giving away a few bucks.
He is a wanker.
Already offered a solution to that probelm, tax returns and education receipts or proof of enrollmentTurquoise wrote:
As another poster mentioned, that's the tricky part -- defining who is "helpless" and who is lazy. If it were easier to do, then I'd take your position.lowing wrote:
Perhaps, it is just that my unconditional compassion is reserved for the helpless. Not having or not wanting to work to betteryour situation warrants no compassion from me, let the liberals coddle them for votes.Turquoise wrote:
I only ask you this to differentiate you from certain other people who won't go named. You at least have some sense of compassion, and I respect you for that. Certain other people could learn to feel the same.
Says the guy wrapped up in microsoft products.Ersguterjunge wrote:
He is a wanker.
Oh give me a fucking break. It's Marxist to have social programs? Take a look around you, genius. The vast majority of the First World has a set of social programs that are usually more comprehensive than ours, and for good reason. Part of being in a modern prosperous civilization involves having programs that aid the less fortunate. Unless, of course, you'd like things to eventually get to the point where the poor are banging on your door for food and are desperate enough to kill you for it.Dersmikner wrote:
Turquoise, it's entirely possible that I give more money each year to the assholes you VERBALLY support than you make in a year, so compassion isn't something I lack, but unless I misread the Constitution, this country wasn't founded on tit-feeding the worthless.
Maybe YOU should move to Russia instead of trying to turn Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson's vision into Karl Marx's vision.
To evade the possiblity of an eventual class revolt, social programs are necessary. And if you really are naive enough to think charity can handle the full burden of the poor, then look up how things were in the early 1900s. Look at the Great Depression as well. Trust me, you don't want things to go back to those days.
Do a Nancy Bollox and have a trawl through them threads...you won't find any input from me....except one thread where i was jabbing at Parker.ATG wrote:
No.suomalainen_äijä wrote:
lolm3thod wrote:
Not really. I just didnt understand what you wanted to debate:
Gun restrictions?
Why people kill each other?
The world going down the toilet?
Zero hope for humanity?
Ya get me?
And oh ya! i really hate ALLLLLL Americans....wait a minute topal63 and GunSlinger to name two are cool d00ds i'd love to meet.....now who said that you have consistently misplaced disgust???
Every time one of these shootings happen in America a whirllygig conversation begins that almost always involves the same charges and counter arguments from the usual suspects.
I didn't elaborate in the OP because I wanted raw commentary, which seems to have been a decent tactic in this case.
At least I didn't go
/discuss.
I don't give a fuck what happens on US soil, hell own all the guns you want, kill each other. I couldn't care less.
Hence i was somewhat bemused to see a lone URL with no explanation what should be discussed.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
If you're mentally challenged and can't work, you should get government help.
If you're physically handicapped and can't find a desk job, or other work, you should get government help.
If you're temporarily out of work, you should get job training and 6 months worth of government help.
If you're lazy, stupid, overburdened with kids, not capable of staying off drugs or alcohol, unable to perform at and keep a job even if you find one, or can't or won't find a job that supports yourself and your family, piss up a rope.
If you're physically handicapped and can't find a desk job, or other work, you should get government help.
If you're temporarily out of work, you should get job training and 6 months worth of government help.
If you're lazy, stupid, overburdened with kids, not capable of staying off drugs or alcohol, unable to perform at and keep a job even if you find one, or can't or won't find a job that supports yourself and your family, piss up a rope.
Alright, I can agree with that. However, maybe we can also agree on the importance of making job training affordable and accessible.Dersmikner wrote:
If you're mentally challenged and can't work, you should get government help.
If you're physically handicapped and can't find a desk job, or other work, you should get government help.
If you're temporarily out of work, you should get job training and 6 months worth of government help.
If you're lazy, stupid, overburdened with kids, not capable of staying off drugs or alcohol, unable to perform at and keep a job even if you find one, or can't or won't find a job that supports yourself and your family, piss up a rope.
While I support the idea of school vouchers for pre-collegiate education, I also support state-funded colleges -- especially technical ones.
We need to devote less public education toward liberal arts and more towards technical trades, so that when people do lose their jobs, they can easily obtain training necessary to find another job. This should appeal to you and many other conservatives because the goal is to minimize the amount of money and time spent by the government on people who need help.
If we really had a system better designed for people to help themselves, you wouldn't even have as many people on welfare.
As cynical as I am, I really do believe that the majority of the poor and the lower middle class are hard workers who want to be able to support themselves. Laziness is certainly significant, but I think it's less prevalent than you imply...
just by chance I saw this topic and... imagine it happened in my country! Not something to be proud of but I certainly agree with the Aussie guy saying that this is probably "better" than the bombs and war. The war probably stayed withing people's hearts and minds, and this is what comes out at some point with some people. All kind of guns and weapons are available to the people and it is hard to control it. No-one knows when another war might break out and "tools" might be needed again. I am really sorry for the community where it happened... any idea when this took place, since I don't recall anything like this in the papers?
When will people learn?
NO GUNS = NO GUN RELATED CRIME
Whatever part of the world you live in.
NO GUNS = NO GUN RELATED CRIME
Whatever part of the world you live in.
Dude as much as i am in the ban all guns camp.....that logic doesn't work.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
When will people learn?
NO GUNS = NO GUN RELATED CRIME
Whatever part of the world you live in.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
What?m3thod wrote:
Dude as much as i am in the ban all guns camp.....that logic doesn't work.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
When will people learn?
NO GUNS = NO GUN RELATED CRIME
Whatever part of the world you live in.
How does not having any guns not stop people using them?
They can't use them 'cos there aren't any (available).
Obviously, guns (and other weapons) are probably always going to exist. And some criminals will always use weapons. But guns are way way too easy to get hold of. Even in the UK. The only people that should be allowed to have guns, in any country, are the military.
Banning guns goes a long way to prevent gun crime but that's easy for us as we've never had a obsessive gun culture, but to say there will be no gun crime is daft.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
What?m3thod wrote:
Dude as much as i am in the ban all guns camp.....that logic doesn't work.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
When will people learn?
NO GUNS = NO GUN RELATED CRIME
Whatever part of the world you live in.
How does not having any guns not stop people using them?
They can't use them 'cos there aren't any (available).
Obviously, guns (and other weapons) are probably always going to exist. And some criminals will always use weapons. But guns are way way too easy to get hold of. Even in the UK. The only people that should be allowed to have guns, in any country, are the military.
A 16 year old Somalian kid was shot dead in London over the weekend for example....
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Yes, but you would not believe just how easy it is to get a gun in this country. If you have the money and you want one, you can get one.m3thod wrote:
Banning guns goes a long way to prevent gun crime but that's easy for us as we've never had a obsessive gun culture, but to say there will be no gun crime is daft.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
What?m3thod wrote:
Dude as much as i am in the ban all guns camp.....that logic doesn't work.
How does not having any guns not stop people using them?
They can't use them 'cos there aren't any (available).
Obviously, guns (and other weapons) are probably always going to exist. And some criminals will always use weapons. But guns are way way too easy to get hold of. Even in the UK. The only people that should be allowed to have guns, in any country, are the military.
A 16 year old Somalian kid was shot dead in London over the weekend for example....
I mean the only way you should ever even contemplate seeing, let alone laying your hands on, a firearm is in the military.
The controls need to be that tight.
Scorpion, how do you propose removing guns from America?
In principle, your idea works if your society has never had a prevalence of guns among the public (like Japan), but countries like America have always had guns. Since guns are so common here, I don't see any practical solution to this other than making it easy for law-abiding and mentally sane people to have them to defend against criminals.
In principle, your idea works if your society has never had a prevalence of guns among the public (like Japan), but countries like America have always had guns. Since guns are so common here, I don't see any practical solution to this other than making it easy for law-abiding and mentally sane people to have them to defend against criminals.
The military go from house to house... And they remove any guns they find... And then they destroy them... Any guns that turn up after that, are removed and destroyed.... And continue... Yes, it would take some time... Yes, it would require a lot of manpower... Yes, it would really piss a lot of people off... But it could be done.... If there were the political will (in both the politicians and the electorate).Turquoise wrote:
Scorpion, how do you propose removing guns from America?
In principle, your idea works if your society has never had a prevalence of guns among the public (like Japan), but countries like America have always had guns. Since guns are so common here, I don't see any practical solution to this other than making it easy for law-abiding and mentally sane people to have them to defend against criminals.
Have you ever been to America?... If you were a politician and even hinted at implementing a policy like that, you'd get assassinated -- as you should, to be quite frank.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The military go from house to house... And they remove any guns they find... And then they destroy them... Any guns that turn up after that, are removed and destroyed.... And continue... Yes, it would take some time... Yes, it would require a lot of manpower... Yes, it would really piss a lot of people off... But it could be done.... If there were the political will (in both the politicians and the electorate).Turquoise wrote:
Scorpion, how do you propose removing guns from America?
In principle, your idea works if your society has never had a prevalence of guns among the public (like Japan), but countries like America have always had guns. Since guns are so common here, I don't see any practical solution to this other than making it easy for law-abiding and mentally sane people to have them to defend against criminals.
Seriously, man... Don't you think your plan sounds a bit fascist?...